I think it's pretty outrageous. I'm not even sure what more there is to say. This kind of thing implicates so many of a person's beliefs and values. The state is completely out of line stepping in here.

Very interesting. In this case, I would personally say they shouldn't, but then there's a long-standing legal/medical precedent that applies that means they can (though taking her into custody is a little out there). Since she's a minor, it would normally fall to her parents/guardians to decide. But this has the added side to being a life-threatening disease. That detail, along with her being a minor, means she can't refuse treatment. Once she turns 18, she can refuse treatment, but I'm pessimistic about this case.

But her parents are in agreement with her, and they have legitimate, though perhaps flawed (I don't know the science), reasoning.

Bodily autonomy should be absolute. If her parents disagreed, this could be a more interesting question, but I see no reason why the state should be forcing this.

Having said that, given the source, none of this may be true, and I really cba to research someone else's topic properly for them.

Mendax, if you are going to be so partisan, here are the top five Google results:

http://www.policestateusa.com/2015/cassandra-forced-chemotherapy/
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/06/connecticut-teen-forced-to-undergo-chemo-treatments/21125330/
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2015/01/05/state-forces-connecticut-teen-with-cancer-to-receive-chemotherapy/
http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/01/03/connecticut-teen-taken-away-from-mother-and-physically-forced-to-have-chemotherapy/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mirah-riben/connecticut-top-court-to-_b_6409420.html

It's hardly being partisan to not trust Fox at this point - they've been wrong so many times.

Anyway, there is an age where forcing this becomes more sensible, along the lines of mandatory vaccinations. Cassandra, at 17, is so close to adult (given the length of time that cancer treatment can take) that it makes no sense to force the treatment here.

I had a very serious cancer when I was 13 and had about 15 months of chemotherapy.

My view is if fully informed the patient AND parents chose to decline treatment then they should be allowed to 'make this mistake'.

If the parents assent and the child does not, then the child should be forced to take the 'cure' as recommended by the medical staff.

The key thing is practicalities - the medical staff really do need the childs assent to treat them because believe me treatment is difficult enough even with a willing patient.

If they wanted to treat me against my will they would literally have to keep me in prison for months and drug me unconscious in order to administer chemo. This of course would be highly risky in itself. And then there's the collateral legal and ethical consequences if treatment has adverse side-affects or I kill myself to escape what is from a certain point of view physical assault.

It's a very tricky problem, but from a mature point of view the medical staff are trying to do what they believe is best, and minors should assume adults know best (up to a point) until they themselves are an adult.

People who expect a 'nice' answer to all of life's problems are perhaps a little naive.

The government can get away with forcing treatment on almost anyone by going to court and arguing that the person blocking the treatment doesn't have the right anymore. For a minor they take over guardianship even if it's the parents. For an adult it's by declaring the adult isn't mentally competent to make the decision. Even if there is a valid alternative treatment or it violates the patient's religious rights, you have these incidents.

Note the Supreme Court has repeated had cases on medical care regarding the patient's wishes to select a treatment or not to be treated at all. However even if a patient has a living will and other legal documents prepared in advanced, you can get long legal fights on a specific case.

this kinda reminds me of seatbelts... i always wear mine because it's smart and i don't mind it, but it doesn't threaten anyone else and the fact that you have to pay hundred dollar fines is bullshit. People should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. That said, I don't advocate drug use, even in private. It is unhealthy and if it starts in private it can lead to addictions which can lead to criminal activities... damn street youths

There is the point that Hodgkin's lymphoma is fatal if not treated. That, added to the fact that she's a minor, is why she can't refuse treatment. If it weren't fatal, her parents could decide whether or not she were treated. If she weren't a minor, which she soon won't be, she could refuse treatment. This case looks to be interesting.

There is no reason why, just because she is a minor, the state's opinion should be substituted instead of that of her parents. I agree that if her parents thought she should get the treatment, then she should.

From what I read in one of the other links KC posted is that her mother wanted to take her to another state to see about some other treatment. That could play a little into this.

Semck - would you take the same view with parents who refused to vaccinate their children (notably the MMR vaccine)?

What's particularly wrong here is that the government is forcing an individual to accept treatment for a non-contagious disease. She does not endanger anyone else by refusing treatment, and since there is no conflict on the matter between the parents and daughter, there is really no reason the government should have gotten involved.

Doctors, well-meaning as they might be, have no right to force treatments on individuals. Whoever reported the incident to DCF obviously had concerns for Cassandra's welfare, but they need to know the limits on their own responsibility. Even when declining treatment is effectively suicide, I think patients should still have that right.

Does it seem to anyone else that the government forcing medication upon people is a little.... Uh. Weird? I didn't sign up for this in the contract...

UPDATE: Connecticut Supreme Court upheld ruling, and are allowing this girl to be forcibly restrained and given chemotherapy.

*sigh* Called it, though I wish it could have turned out better for her. I'm assuming they went with the reasons I cited.

I saw the mother interviewed on CBS news and the fact she said that they hadn't taken the daughter yet to another doctor for another treatment opinion pretty much meant that they were going to lose. If they could have shown that they were actively seeking treatment other than chemo, then they had a case that it was a patient's choice on how to treat.

Instead they went with whether Cassandra was mature enough to make a decision. It was on quality of life.

Their attorney sucks. I pointed out the first one Randomizer mentioned in the hopes that they would use it. I knew the maturity argument would lose because it IS a precedent for the state to carry out something like this based on a) her being a minor and b) Hodgkin's lymphoma being a fatal diagnosis if untreated. They came in with losing arguments when they had it laid out there. Cassandra turns 18 the same month I do. And I thought it felt like such a long time until then for me. I can only imagine how that feels for her.