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.
Usually this is so. But when the alternative is pretty much to force her to be tortured, I think this alternative is worse.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)