# Connecticut can now force a 17-year old to undergo chemotherapy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2015, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384 "2015-01-09T11:40:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/61 "2015-01-11T03:27:37Z")
How many people need and want treatment and get turned away from hospitals? Look, she offered treatment, she said no, her mom said no. (where is dad?) The rest of this is none of your business. **BudgetPlayerCadet** So, you were in favor of keeping Terri Schiavo alive? Look, people die, even 17 year old girls. And even if she gets this treatment, she will still die. Frantically stepping to save this girls life is absolute hypocrisy when we do nothing to ensure proper medical treatment for all. This is none of our business. What is the STATES compelling interest in forcing this medical procedure on this family especially when the state will happily sit by while loads of people die from treatable problems. Should we not be taking the children away from every anti vaxer? Tell me the reason the STATE must do this. And don’t come back with a poem. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/62 "2015-01-11T03:30:14Z")
> [@Mdcastle](#): > > For reasons I don’t want to get into this case is _extremely_ personal to me. On one hand there’s benefit to picking an age of majority and sticking to it (and while we’re at it raising the driving age and lowering the drinking age just to stay consistent), but I’ve already decide I’d refuse chemotherapy no matter what the situation, and made that decision before I was 18, so I’m ambivalent about the whole issue. I’d strongly agree with most of this. Having said that: we need to determine an age of maturity, arbitrary or not, and we’ve set that at 18. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/63 "2015-01-11T04:04:46Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I’d strongly agree with most of this. Having said that: we need to determine an age of maturity, arbitrary or not, and we’ve set that at 18. Every jurisdiction I know of has different ages for different rights and privileges. For example, in Colorado, a 16 year old can drive a farm tractor, but you have to be 21 for marijuana. While you can argue until the cows come home whether those are the right two ages, I don’t see any confusion or problem in having them be different. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/64 "2015-01-11T04:45:14Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > So we are responsible for everyone’s life? No. If Cassandra’s mother was refusing chemotherapy, I’d still say she was making the wrong decision but I’d also say it was her decision to make. The main issue here is the person with cancer is a minor, even if only be a few months. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/65 "2015-01-11T06:37:59Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Every jurisdiction I know of has different ages for different rights and privileges. For example, in Colorado, a 16 year old can drive a farm tractor, but you have to be 21 for marijuana. While you can argue until the cows come home whether those are the right two ages, I don’t see any confusion or problem in having them be different. And how old do you need to be to be tried as an adult for murder? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/66 "2015-01-11T10:46:53Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > And how old do you need to be to be tried as an adult for murder? Depends entirely on your local laws. In my jurisdiction, the default age is 18. The prosecutor, under circumstances set forth in state law, may ask the court to try a younger suspect as an adult; sometimes the court agrees and sometimes they don’t. This is similar to what happened in Cassandra’s case, in reverse. There, the “default” age for making your own medical decisions is 18. Cassandra asked the court for an exception under the mature minor doctrine; the court said she failed to demonstrate that she was in fact a mature minor. > [@Zebra](#): > > Look, she offered treatment, she said no, her mom said no. (where is dad?) The rest of this is none of your business. Let’s revise the situation slightly. Make Cassandra seventeen months instead of seventeen years. Like almost every other toddler, Cassandra screams when a doctor appears with a needle; she’s saying no. Mom says no, too: “let the kid die; I don’t care.” Would you be comfortable in this situation? How about if Mom decides to feed poison to her toddler–after all, it’s the parent’s business and none of ours, right? If you are not comfortable with those situations, where exactly and precisely do you draw the line? If a toddler can’t make medical decisions and a teenager can, what is the exact age that will be the new bright-line rule? How about eight or ten or twelve or fourteen? How about thirteen years and 173 days? What is the exact day and hour that a child acquires the right to decide for themselves? If you are comfortable with the situations I describe, are you comfortable with repealing any and all child abuse and neglect statutes and returning children to the status of legal property of their parents, to live or die as the parent desires? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/67 "2015-01-11T11:47:35Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > How many people need and want treatment and get turned away from hospitals? > > Look, she offered treatment, she said no, her mom said no. (where is dad?) The rest of this is none of your business. It absolutely is our business when she’s a minor, and I’d argue there’s a case to be made that this is more like someone jumping in front of a train because they think it’ll take them to magical unicorn land, if not downright someone being suicidal - we _should_ step in. > [@](#): > > **BudgetPlayerCadet** > > So, you were in favor of keeping Terri Schiavo alive? There was no “alive” to keep her. She was braindead, and no amount of treatment was going to bring her back. There was also a reasonable quality of life argument to be made - even if she was technically “alive”, there was a serious consideration of whether her life was worth living like that. _This isn’t equivalent._ We’re talking about a full recovery in a few years and then living your life like anyone else with few permanent repercussions. The two cases are so not even remotely similar to each other that it hurts. Look, should we stop people from committing suicide? Should suicide be a crime, or something we should aim to prevent? If so, _why is this different?_ > [@](#): > > Should we not be taking the children away from every anti vaxer? Maybe. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/68 "2015-01-11T13:29:57Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > So we are responsible for everyone’s life? In many respects yes. That’s what make civilized society cohesive. It’s why we have mandated reporting laws for suspected cases of abuse, welfare checks by police, meals on wheels programs etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![staili](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@staili](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/staili)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/69 "2015-01-12T00:56:05Z")
Cassandra wrote to ABC that “I entirely understand that death will be the outcome without the chemo,” but then she also writes that her side effects are currently “mild to none” and that “I’m more concerned about the long-term side effects.” Which of course isn’t something she should be worrying about if she truly understands that her risk of dying in 2 years without the chemo is pretty close to 100%. There are many 17-year-olds who are capable of making a well-thought-out decision to refuse chemotherapy, but she’s not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/70 "2015-01-12T12:54:36Z")
Without getting into the politics of the thing, I was born in raised in Connecticut, and like Massachusetts, New York, California and some other states, they have the “we know what best for you and we’ll make those decisions for you because you really don’t know what’s best” mentality. Drives me nuts. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/71 "2015-01-12T13:08:07Z")
If she was 18, she’d be able to refuse a treatment legally – and whatever our beliefs, chemotherapy can be very unpleasant, and someone might reasonably choose to not undergo it. Morally, I don’t think a 17 year old should be forced to undergo a procedure she doesn’t want, even if it would save her life. It would be different if she was 12 or 13. I lean towards the idea that the law should agree. This is such an unusual case that I don’t know if legislation is warranted. While I hate the idea of her refusing a procedure that could save her life, and I hate the idea that she would probably die if she got her way, I think I hate even more the idea that she has to be physically forced into the exam room, and physically forced to undergo a treatment that physically makes her feel like shit. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/72 "2015-01-12T13:49:40Z")
> [@staili](#): > > Cassandra wrote to ABC that “I entirely understand that death will be the outcome without the chemo,” but then she also writes that her side effects are currently “mild to none” and that “I’m more concerned about the long-term side effects.” Which of course isn’t something she should be worrying about if she truly understands that her risk of dying in 2 years without the chemo is pretty close to 100%. “Sure, if I refuse to eat food, I’ll die in 3 months, but I’ll have a killer figure just in time for beach season in 4 months!” Jesus. She really doesn’t get it, does she? @ **spifflog** : yes, but in this case they actually _do_ know better. @ **iiandiii** : Yes, but for someone suffering through depression, not letting them kill themselves can amount to physically forcing them to not do something that would end their all-too-real suffering. Where’s the problem with ths analogy? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/73 "2015-01-12T13:54:32Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > @ **iiandiii** : Yes, but for someone suffering through depression, not letting them kill themselves can amount to physically forcing them to not do something that would end their all-too-real suffering. Where’s the problem with ths analogy? If she’s diagnosed as suffering from depression, then my opinion would definitely change. But if she hasn’t been diagnosed with any psychiatric disorders, then I don’t believe it’s right to physically force her to undergo a treatment that can be torturous (from what some have told me). Because that’s what it physically amounts to in order to make her go through this – the state has to send strong men to physically find her, restrain her, transport her to a hospital, physically examine her against her will, and physically inject her with chemicals that will make her feel like shit. Allowing her to make a bad decision that will probably lead to her death is very bad, but in my opinion, what I just described is worse. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/74 "2015-01-12T13:56:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If she’s diagnosed as suffering from depression, then my opinion would definitely change. But if she hasn’t been diagnosed with any psychiatric disorders, then I don’t believe it’s right to physically force her to undergo a treatment that can be torturous (from what some have told me). But why does that change the situation? This person is basically saying, “I want to die rather than undergo this torturous treatment.” Why is this different from someone with depression saying, “I want to die rather than undergo this torturous existence”? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/75 "2015-01-12T14:02:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But why does that change the situation? This person is basically saying, “I want to die rather than undergo this torturous treatment.” Why is this different from someone with depression saying, “I want to die rather than undergo this torturous existence”? Someone experiencing depression may not be able to make reasonable judgments about their own health, safety, and future – they may not be “of sound mind”. Further, depression can be treated. If she were depressed, and her depression were treated and she were no longer diagnosed as depressed, but she still didn’t want to do chemo, then I think it would be wrong to force her. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/76 "2015-01-12T14:40:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Someone experiencing depression may not be able to make reasonable judgments about their own health, safety, and future – they may not be “of sound mind”. And she evidently isn’t either. Hell, even if it weren’t for the numerous truly baffling statements she’s made, I’d question whether or not she was of sound mind for refusing chemo in a case like this. Why is that not a valid viewpoint? I’m not trying to say “she’s depressed and suicidal”. I’m drawing comparisons between her case and the case of someone trying to kill themselves. She doesn’t want a life-saving treatment because she thinks it will suck but she will die if she doesn’t receive it; suicidal people don’t want to live because they think it sucks and so want to die. Why do we save the suicidal people, but not her? > [@](#): > > Further, depression can be treated. In this analogy, you know what her not getting chemo is analogous to? Suicide. Yes, depression can be treated. So can her cancer, and in theory, so can her opposition to chemotherapy. But if we don’t treat it now (strap her down and force her to not kill herself), she will die (kill herself). Why do we take such a cavalier attitude towards life-saving medicine, but when someone wants to kill themselves, it’s somehow a tragedy? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/77 "2015-01-12T14:46:17Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And she evidently isn’t either. Hell, even if it weren’t for the numerous truly baffling statements she’s made, I’d question whether or not she was of sound mind for refusing chemo in a case like this. Why is that not a valid viewpoint? I’m not trying to say “she’s depressed and suicidal”. I’m drawing comparisons between her case and the case of someone trying to kill themselves. She doesn’t want a life-saving treatment because she thinks it will suck but she will die if she doesn’t receive it; suicidal people don’t want to live because they think it sucks and so want to die. Why do we save the suicidal people, but not her? I’m not just going to take your word that she has some mental disorder. If she hasn’t been personally diagnosed by real psychiatric professionals with some cognitive disorder that can make her more likely to harm herself, then I cannot conclude that she isn’t of sound mind. We treat suicidal people (generally) because they have some sort of disorder. If someone has a diagnosed cognitive disorder that can affect decision-making, then the right thing to do is to treat them even if they don’t consent to treatment. But if someone does not have any diagnosed cognitive disorder, then it’s wrong to force treatment on them that can be torturous. > [@](#): > > In this analogy, you know what her not getting chemo is analogous to? > > Suicide. > > Yes, depression can be treated. So can her cancer, and in theory, so can her opposition to chemotherapy. But if we don’t treat it now (strap her down and force her to not kill herself), she will die (kill herself). > > Why do we take such a cavalier attitude towards life-saving medicine, but when someone wants to kill themselves, it’s somehow a tragedy? This is a tragedy either way. We either allow her to make a bad decision that will lead to her death, or we physically restrain her and force her to undergo a torturous experience against her will. Both of those options are terrible – but if she hasn’t been diagnosed with a cognitive disorder like depression, then the second one is worse, in my view. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/78 "2015-01-12T14:46:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Morally, I don’t think a 17 year old should be forced to undergo a procedure she doesn’t want, even if it would save her life. It would be different if she was 12 or 13. > > … I hate even more the idea that she has to be physically forced into the exam room, and physically forced to undergo a treatment that physically makes her feel like shit. For some reason, we manage to convince ourselves that it’s morally wrong to strap down a 17 year old and force them to take treatment, but it’s morally right to do the exact same thing to a 12 year old. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/79 "2015-01-12T14:48:47Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > For some reason, we manage to convince ourselves that it’s morally wrong to strap down a 17 year old and force them to take treatment, but it’s morally right to do the exact same thing to a 12 year old. Yep. The reason has to do with consent. A 12 year old, in my view, cannot consent to denying lifesaving treatment. A 17 year old can. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/80 "2015-01-12T15:02:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not just going to take your word that she has some mental disorder. And I’m not saying that she does! What I’m saying is that she’s doing something which she probably doesn’t understand is _suicidal_ behaviour. When someone is about to kill themselves, we step in. We usually consider ourselves morally obliged to do so. Especially if that person doesn’t understand what they’re doing. > [@](#): > > We treat suicidal people (generally) because they have some sort of disorder. If someone has a diagnosed cognitive disorder that can affect decision-making, then the right thing to do is to treat them even if they don’t consent to treatment. And usually, if they’re doing something that would kill them, we _find_ a disorder. Or does a sane psychological profile mean that someone can kill themselves with no intervention? I think many here would argue that someone of sane mind _wouldn’t_ kill themselves at all! And yet that is precisely what she is doing - solving a temporary problem with a permanent solution. And we know what’s going on, as well - she doesn’t understand the permanence, she doesn’t understand the complications, and she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384.md?page=5)