Cancer-Stricken 17 Year Old Still Forced into Chemo Against Her Will
Is it so wrong to accept fate and desire to live the quality of life you have left when stricken with diseases like cancer? This is the case with a Connecticut teenager, who has voiced her need to live life without harsh treatments like chemotherapy – a decision that is evidently against the wishes of the state Supreme Court.
The girl, identified only as Cassandra, has Hodgkin’s lymphoma. While it may seems unreasonable to many to refuse mainstream treatments, she is worried about what she considers risks, including heart defects, organ damage, and digestive problems. Still, the Connecticut Supreme Court has decided to continue forcing Cassandra to take the treatment. The state ruled Cassandra is not mature enough to make the decision on her own.
“I entirely understand that death will be the outcome without the chemo,” Cassandra wrote to ABC News affiliate WTNH-TV from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, where she has been living and getting treatment. “The doctors have made that clear. But they can’t necessarily give me a ‘death date,’ so as I’ve said before, I believe in the quality of my life, not the quantity.”
Even in the land of the free, it seems individuals are forced into mainstream medical treatments against their will. The court summary said Cassandra underwent chemotherapy twice in November and then ran away from home, refusing to continue the treatment. Though even with support from the mother, along with the Cassandra’s core belief that chemo wasn’t the answer, the teen was forced to go to court after the Department of Children and Families ordered her to comply with the doctor’s recommendation.
Of course there are 2 sides of this issue, as the news video below reports.
“When experts — such as the several physicians involved in this case — tell us with certainty that a child will die as a result of leaving a decision up to a parent, then the Department has a responsibility to take action. Even if the decision might result in criticism, we have an obligation to protect the life of the child when there is consensus among the medical experts that action is required. Much of the improvements in Connecticut’s child welfare system have come from working with families voluntarily to realize solutions to family challenges.”
“Under this circumstance — when there is medical consensus that action must be taken or the child will die — the Department has a clear and urgent responsibility to save the life of this child,” DCF said.
Assistant Attorney General John Tucker said Cassandra is “irrationally refusing treatment that is lifesaving,” WTNH-TV reported. Telling your mainstream medical doctor that you’d like to forfeit chemotherapy and instead adopt an organic lifestyle full of juicing and raw nutrition to treat your own cancer could lead him or her to label you as ‘insane’, but it could also save your life. But as evidenced in one of many cases,  one man with stage 3 colon cancer given a 60% chance to live for a maximum of five more years under chemotherapy decided to forfeit chemo and venture into a natural health lifestyle only to be more than satisfied 9 years later.
This is only one of many examples of safer, alternative solutions that has saved lives.
She plans to move out of the hospital when she turns 18, she wrote.
“I hope that one day if a minor is put in my position, they will not have to go through what I’m going through.”
What do you think of this case?
chemo has a 97% failure rate failure meaning most times it killed the patient not the cancer it was “treating”. cancer doesn’t even kill as many people as chemo does. what do I think should be done ? thanks for asking. convene a common law grand jury and indict the courts the judge the lawyers the dr.s anyone who willingly got involved in this family’s life on the wrong side. when the sheriff refuses to serve the warrants issue one for him too. elect a group of citizen volunteers as posse and serve them. we have the lawful processes the numbers the power and glory to finally take responsibility for ourselves. killakhazarjustforthefunofit
Consider suing if she dies after taking all the chemo all involved on this mandatory treatment. They validate that she must have this or she will die without. They justify interfering by they can’t let a “child” die when they know she will die without treatment. Then she will not die with THE TREATMENT? Most of us know that is not reality. IF she dies by the court’s decision of treatment, this is “OK” by the law? However, not “OK” if it happens by the choice of treatment or none by the patient and family. Something seriously wrong with the law and the medical world! FREE COUNTRY-LAND OF OPPORTUNITY AND CHOICE. I think not.
Shouldn’t the state law yield to the guardianship of the parents. For they are the ones that act in her best interest.
“But as evidenced in one of many cases, one man with stage 3 colon cancer given a 60% chance to live for a maximum of five more years under chemotherapy decided to forfeit chemo and venture into a natural health lifestyle only to be more than satisfied 9 years later.