• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

17 y/o girl removed from home and forcibly given chemo-therepy.

lazylazyjoe

lazylazyjoe

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
1,059
Just curious what other feel about this.

A 17 y/o girl who was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma underwent 2 months of chemo, then decided that she did not wish to undergo treatment anymore. So, the state (CT) had the child removed from her home and placed in child protective services' custody and forcibly given treatment, by order of the state supreme court.

The state has decided that a poisonous drug must be administered to her as she is 'too young' to make treatment decisions on her own. Her mother was unhappy about it, but decided to side with her daughter eventually.

At first, I wondered how they would enforce this. Would they put the girl in jail for failing to comply? However, my next thought was that they might have got her to ultimately comply by threatening her mother with criminal charges.

If it were me, I would have applied for emancipation, and left the state so that they could no longer enforce their ruling nor charge her mother with neglect charges.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-force-a-teenage-girl-to-undergo-chemotherapy
 
They would keep her forcibly hospitalized. It's really all they can do until her treatment is done.
I don't necessarily agree with it but Hodgkins Lymphoma has a very high survival rate when compared to other cancers, even in long term, so I'm unsure about why she wishes to stop treatment (never read the article getting ready to go to class).
 
One of those ethical dilemmas that I'm glad I don't have to decide. The girls reasoning sounds rational but it's hard to say without meeting her.
 
I don't understand her logic - chemotherapy is poisoning her body, but letting malignant tumors grow isn't?
 
Very tough situation. I would want to turn down the chemo too but I'm an adult and I would love an excuse to just die (I'm not a happy person.) In any case, one day when she's better she's going to be so grateful that she wasn't allowed to just die. And she'll become the enemy of those of us who support death with dignity and all. In any case, tough break getting cancer at that age especially.
 
Well Connecticut is the same state that decided that the government can forcibly buy your property for government purposes or for third parties who are to use the land for public use or to enhance economic development. Look up eminent domain case Kelo vs. City of New London. The government took private property for the purposes of economic development. Maybe that doesn't sound so bad, the end result justifies the means, but nothing was ever done with the property and millions of dollars from public funding were wasted in the process.

I don't know the details of this particular case, but between Yale and Pfizer the medical community has a lot of influence in CT decisions.
 
sounds like she and her mother are crazies, thinking she won't die without treatment. some holistic "doctor" or religious figure probably got to them. but that happens; the state deciding they are going to step in and force chemo is absurd. she must be be poor -- government property. edit: article is lacking some details. for the state to be stepping in like this, i bet it's mostly the mother who is crazy and the daughter just influenced. daughter might be saying she wants to live but agreeing with her mother that she doesn't need treatment. which would make the court's decision understandable.

hope it's a brilliant scam to avoid an ugly out-of-pocket limit.
 
Last edited:
My main question has always been: Who's going to pay for it?
Since they denied treatment and the state is mandating it then who coughs up the cash for it? I'm more curious about that then anything else. If the state pays for it then they sure played this one well because cancer treatments are not cheap!
 
Americanfloosie said:
My main question has always been: Who's going to pay for it?
Since they denied treatment and the state is mandating it then who coughs up the cash for it? I'm more curious about that then anything else. If the state pays for it then they sure played this one well because cancer treatments are not cheap!
Click to expand...

If i learned anything from Breaking Bad it's that if you get cancer than cooking crystal meth could pay for treatment.

There's no such scene in CT or its very small and underground, so there is an emerging market to be captured #Heisenberg #Yeah science!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top