A local 17-year-old refuses to get chemotherapy for cancer. The State Supreme Court mandates she has to. Who should make the choice?

Posted 4 years.


  • jose solis - 4 years ago

    she should be able to do what ever she like to do like she is 17 about to be 18 she old to be able to drive and it in are right that we have the freedom to do what we want

  • jose solis - 4 years ago

    she should be able to do what ever she like to do

  • heather - 4 years ago

    Its the parents call until she's 18 years old. I want to know WHY she doesn't want treatment? Is she planning to pray the cancer away? She needs to think about how she's refusing treatment and that's suicide. Michael C Hall had the same cancer..chemotherapy is tough but not as tough as dying.

  • Johnny - 4 years ago

    I hope she dies, the dumbass.

  • Beth Sousa - 4 years ago

    I agree with the young girl why can't she take something else ? There's no guarantee the chemo is gonna get it all or if the cancer returns like most cases,Doctors and insurance companies are in coaxed and money is the root to it.

  • MLou - 4 years ago

    Not everyone has an 85% chance to SURVIVE if they take the current treatment available.
    In our Society as it stands today; IF THE STATE DOES NOT STEP IN; THEY WILL END UP BEING
    We can excuse her thinking this way as she is the one that will have to endure the chemo.
    Her Mother, however, IS AN IDIOT.

  • jennifer Acabbo - 4 years ago

    What happen to my body my choice. I do know it applies to pregnancy but it should apply to any medical decision. If a girl who is 14 can make the choice to keep a baby or have an abortion without consent of parents or the state stepping in this 17 year old girl should be able to make her choice also.

    The government needs to get out of our homes and families!!!!!

  • Lew - 4 years ago

    Where are all the women's rights groups? Why are they not standing up for this women? It is her RIGHT to do what she wants with her life & body. The progressives like to say "its a woman's body, she can do what she wants", but I guess that only applies to abortions. Maybe if she told the court she was committing "abortion after the fact" they would be OK on her not getting chemo.

  • Ashley - 4 years ago

    What happened to the right of freedom??

  • mary - 4 years ago


  • sher - 4 years ago

    There are no guarantees in the medical world.
    They state in 2 YEARS she would die. No one has defined "cure" how LONG would she live it. Is it guaranteed? What will her LIFELONG after effects be?

    Why couldn't this wait then till she IS 18.

    So now they are restraining her to give her treatment. . what are the lifelong effects of THAT as well?

    Its HER body... NOT the Government's.
    People pay attention, slowly we are losing our rights.

    People do die/permanently disabled from this "cure." It DOES happen. Using the State comment... 15 % of the time. Do we KNOW she is not that 15%?

    I also find this interesting because there were studies last year, by insurance companies I think, that SHOWED no difference between length of life for treated people and not treated... however QUALITY of life was reported as improved... and many lived longer than anticipated.

    Bottom line... the Government should NOT be on our bodies... we are NOT a number or words in a report.

    We are HUMANBEINGS, weighing many factors in our PERSONAL decisions.

  • Maria - 4 years ago

    At the age of 17, we're all young and dumb. Her parents should want nothing more than to treat and keep their child alive especially when she had been told there's an 85% survival chance. Glad to see DCF has gotten involved!!

  • Jennifer - 4 years ago

    Prognosis doesn't matter. What parents want doesn't matter. If I were put in the same position, I would wholeheartedly encourage her to seek treatment. But, if she chose to refrain from chemo, I would respect her wishes and support her.

  • Steve Crowley - 4 years ago

    There Are alternative treatments that have been proven to work. It is insane that the state has the right to dictate the treatment she gets. How much financial kickback is the state getting from insisting she do this.
    This country is on a major downhill slide

  • John - 4 years ago

    Should the state be authorized by default to intervene in such medical cases and mandate someone purchase expensive and toxic treatment? I can only comment on what the powers that be choose to tell me so I have little choice but to render a biased opinion.

    The mother supported her daughter's wishes... is there something about the prognosis of this particular case that the media has chosen to omit?

    Why are stories where those with political power assuming authority to usurp parental influence with their actions being characterized as heroic?

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars

Submit Comment