# 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:** 5
**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, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/81 "2015-01-12T15:05:51Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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. You saying “she probably doesn’t understand” isn’t enough for me to accept that she doesn’t understand. I agree that “we usually consider ourselves morally obliged to do so”. But if the treatment consists of physical suffering comparable to torture, and the person can consent but elects not to to the point of physical resistance, then I do not believe we are morally obliged to cause her this physical suffering comparable to torture. > [@](#): > > 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. Usually this is so. But when the alternative is pretty much to force her to be tortured, I think this alternative is worse. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/82 "2015-01-12T15:55:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. All 17 year olds? If you acknowledge it’s not all 17 year olds, then we have to come up with a way to examine individual cases, which is what the court was used for in this case. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/83 "2015-01-12T16:45:02Z")
> [@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”. 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. The court in Connecticut was asked to consider the question: is Cassandra able to make reasonable judgments about her own health, safety, and future? Their answer: they had seen no evidence that she was, despite her lawyer having the opportunity to present such evidence. The trial judge had the opportunity to observe Cassandra in person, as well as to read the social worker’s assessments and whatever other psychological evidence was available, evidence that has been alluded to but is not available for public review. Connecticut did not say that NO seventeen-year-old could make such judgments; they concluded THIS seventeen-year-old could not. Given that ruling, what distinction are you seeing between depression and her condition (psychological immaturity?) that would justify handling her case differently? ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/84 "2015-01-12T16:59:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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. For a 12 year old, forcibly pumping chemo into them is not only acceptable, but would practically be considered a moral imperative. A few short years later, not only does this practice cease to be an imperative, it turns into torture. That’s a big moral swing. I don’t believe morality deals in bright lines, things don’t go from morally good works to morally torture by virtue of ticking off a date. Legalities deal in bright lines. Have sex with a girl one day before her 16th birthday, you get thrown in jail, the day after, it’s totally legal. This isn’t because it’s morally wrong in the first case and morally right in the second, it’s because the law needs to draw a line somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/85 "2015-01-12T17:11:38Z")
To a large degree ISTM that the discussion of a 17 year old vs. a younger minor is not germane to the example in the OP. The mother, to whom the decision would revert in the case of a non-reponsible minor, agrees with her daughter that she should refuse chemo. Thus whether the minor decides or the guardian decides, the decision of whether someone should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment for reasons that the rest of us disagree with, remains untouched. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 12, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/86 "2015-01-12T17:22:43Z")
> [@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? > > 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? Because some of us see a significant moral difference between _active_ and _passive_ behavior that results in death. I think an adult generally has a moral obligation not to kill themselves, I don’t think there is any such moral obligation to undergo lifesaving medical treatment (and leave the time of your death up to a higher power). Cassandra C is not an adult, of course, so that doesn’t apply. It terrifies me, though, that you would legally require an _adult_ to undergo lifesaving medical treatment when they would prefer to refuse it. That isn’t the kind of society I want to live in. Fortunately, as I said, a year from now Cassandra won’t have to listen to the court, to her mother, or to you. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/87 "2015-01-12T17:32:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > To a large degree ISTM that the discussion of a 17 year old vs. a younger minor is not germane to the example in the OP. The mother, to whom the decision would revert in the case of a non-reponsible minor, agrees with her daughter that she should refuse chemo. Thus whether the minor decides or the guardian decides, the decision of whether someone should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment for reasons that the rest of us disagree with, remains untouched. > > Regards, > Shodan The mother, however, has already been ruled to have neglected her daughter, with the primary evidence being the mother’s failure to obtain medical care. In the months _before_ the diagnosis, Momma repeatedly failed to bring her daughter to appointments, failed to follow up for tests, and so forth. At that point in time, it wasn’t a matter of refusing chemo; it was refusing to find out what was wrong and what treatment was recommended in the first place. (According to one report, Momma showed up for one medical appointment without her daughter; what was the point of that?) Nor was Momma able to show that she was seeking second opinions, researching alternative treatments, or taking any other steps within or without the medical mainstream to address her daughter’s health issues. If Cassandra is a non-responsible minor, and her mother has had her day in court and been ruled unfit by reason of neglect, who’s the next in line? Daddy is not in the picture, and I’ve seen no mention of grandparents or other close relatives, so as in most jurisdictions it falls to an appointed guardian. In this case, her appointed guardian is the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. The guardian decided. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/88 "2015-01-12T17:55:48Z")
> [@theR](#): > > All 17 year olds? If you acknowledge it’s not all 17 year olds, then we have to come up with a way to examine individual cases, which is what the court was used for in this case. I agree, though I don’t think it was applied properly (morally – it may have been legally proper) here. I think in a case like this, the burden of proof should lie with the state, not the individual. If she wasn’t found by medical experts (and I haven’t read anything so far to suggest that she was) to be suffering from a cognitive disorder, than I don’t believe she should be forced to undergo extremely unpleasant treatment against her will. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/89 "2015-01-12T18:32:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I agree, though I don’t think it was applied properly (morally – it may have been legally proper) here. I think in a case like this, the burden of proof should lie with the state, not the individual. If she wasn’t found by medical experts (and I haven’t read anything so far to suggest that she was) to be suffering from a cognitive disorder, than I don’t believe she should be forced to undergo extremely unpleasant treatment against her will. “The court finds credible the testimony of Dr. lsakoff, the treating oncologist. He stated that Cassandra did not have the capacity to make sound medical decisions concerning her cancer treatment … The court finds, from the testimony and its observations of both the mother’s and Cassandra’s demeanor at trial, that Cassandra is overshadowed by the strong negative opinions her mother holds about her cancer diagnosis and treatment …” from Judge Quinn’s articulation dated December 24, 2014, quoted in the [state’s brief](https://appealinglybrief.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/sc-19426-appellee-combined-briefappendix.pdf)(PDF, see pp. 12-13) (It’s also noted therein that Cassandra refused a psychological assessment when the state tried to obtain one, so they are working from the evidence they do have.) ---
**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, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/90 "2015-01-12T18:35:12Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > “The court finds credible the testimony of Dr. lsakoff, the treating oncologist. He > stated that Cassandra did not have the capacity to make sound medical > decisions concerning her cancer treatment … The court finds, from the testimony > and its observations of both the mother’s and Cassandra’s demeanor at > trial, that Cassandra is overshadowed by the strong negative opinions her > mother holds about her cancer diagnosis and treatment …” from Judge Quinn’s articulation dated December 24, 2014, quoted in the [state’s brief](https://appealinglybrief.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/sc-19426-appellee-combined-briefappendix.pdf)(PDF, see pp. 12-13) (It’s also noted therein that Cassandra refused a psychological assessment when the state tried to obtain one, so they are working from the evidence they do have.) Okay, I’m partially swayed, but oncologists aren’t mental health professionals. I don’t know if this is enough to convince me, at least, that she is not of sound mind. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/91 "2015-01-12T18:40:06Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The mother, however, has already been ruled to have neglected her daughter, with the primary evidence being the mother’s failure to obtain medical care. IOW you can choose whether or not to treat your daughter, unless you choose not to, in which case you have to. That’s some catch, that Catch-22. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/92 "2015-01-12T18:44:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IOW you can choose whether or not to treat your daughter, unless you choose not to, in which case you have to. > > That’s some catch, that Catch-22. > > Regards, > Shodan If you don’t even know what’s wrong with your daughter, how can you make any kind of decision about whether or not to treat what’s wrong with her? ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/93 "2015-01-12T18:48:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IOW you can choose whether or not to treat your daughter, unless you choose not to, in which case you have to. You can choose what to feed your kids, how to clothe your kids, how to shelter your kids, how to discipline your kids, unless your choices pose a danger to your kids, in which case the State will make the choice for you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/94 "2015-01-12T18:50:14Z")
That’s not really a choice, is it? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/95 "2015-01-12T19:02:50Z")
Refusing life-saving treatment for a curable and deadly disease is tantamount to suicide. And anyone who is suicidal is clearly not of sound mind enough to make such decisions for themselves regardless of their age. Good on the state for saving a life. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/96 "2015-01-12T19:05:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s not really a choice, is it? Sure it is. I can feed my kids Spaghetti, Beef Stew, Quinoa Salad, Rice & Beans, whatever, but I’m not allowed to feed my children rat poison. This mother is basically saying that rat poison is not dangerous and she should be allowed to feed it to her kid anytime she wants. The kid says, my mom is right, rat poison is mighty good stuff, I definitely want to eat that! No, and fuck no. Untreated, this disease is more dangerous than eating a bowl of rat poison, it’s more dangerous than taking a bullet to the face. It may take longer to die, but death is pretty much assured, and that’s exactly the choice this mother not being allowed to make. ---
**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 12, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/97 "2015-01-12T19:06:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IOW you can choose whether or not to treat your daughter, unless you choose not to, in which case you have to. > > That’s some catch, that Catch-22. > > Regards, > Shodan When choosing not to treat flies in the face of all credible medical advice, it moves from parental authority to negligence. There are too many examples of parents choosing to not seek medical care in which they are not held as negligent to say it’s a universal condemnation. In this case, with these medical facts, it’s child endangerment, not a simple judgement call. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/98 "2015-01-12T19:14:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > {…} a cognitive disorder like depression {…} Umm, > [@](#): > > **Cognitive disorder** > > Cognitive disorders are a category of mental health disorders that primarily affect learning, memory, perception, and problem solving, and include amnesia, dementia, and delirium. While anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and psychotic disorders can also have an effect on cognitive and memory functions, the DSM-IV-TR does not consider these cognitive disorders, because loss of cognitive function is not the primary (causal) symptom. {…} [RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disorder)[/RIGHT] > [@](#): > > **Mood disorder** > > Mood disorder is a group of diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV TR) classification system where a disturbance in the person’s mood is hypothesized to be the main underlying feature. {…} > {…} Two groups of mood disorders are broadly recognized {…} Two groups of mood disorders are broadly recognized; the division is based on whether a manic or hypomanic episode has ever been present. Thus, there are depressive disorders, of which the best-known and most researched is major depressive disorder (MDD) commonly called clinical depression or major depression, and bipolar disorder (BD), formerly known as manic depression and characterized by intermittent episodes of mania or hypomania, usually interlaced with depressive episodes. However, there are also psychiatric syndromes featuring less severe depression known as dysthymic disorder (similar to but milder than MDD) and cyclothymic disorder (similar to but milder than BD). {…} [RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_disorder)[/RIGHT] CMC fnord! ---
**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, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/99 "2015-01-12T20:04:01Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Umm, > > CMC fnord! Thank you for correcting me – it sounds like what I was describing was a mood disorder. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384/100 "2015-01-12T20:21:01Z")
> [@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). > > 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. Annnd If she does have depression and doesn’t want to take the anti-depressive drug(s) that will make her feel like shit? I mean if we can’t force her to get the cancer treated then we can’t we force her to get the depression treated, can we? (And of course she depressed . . . she’s got cancer!) CMC fnord! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/connecticut-can-now-force-a-17-year-old-to-undergo-chemotherapy/709384.md?page=6)