The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Who the hell has the right to tell her she has to suffer through chemo...

It's not quite as unusual a situation as you would think. She is probably considered incompetent under applicable state law to make that decision due to her minor status. Her parents have customary decision making authority, but a guardian ad litem was probably appointed to represent her best interests. Fairly similar to cases in which children are temporarily removed from a home by Human Services against the parents' wishes for reasons related to the health and safety of the children, pending a contested hearing.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

a guardian ad litem was probably appointed to represent her best interests. Fairly similar to cases in which children are temporarily removed from a home by Human Services against the parents' wishes for reasons related to the health and safety of the children, pending a contested hearing.

hmm...the TV news story said that the girl had a public defender representing her in a lawsuit against DCF. Would be odd for her to have both a guardian ad litem and a public defender "representing" her even though they would also be opposed to each other?

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting court case, not at federal SCOTUS level yet but at State SCOTUS currently.

A 17-year old girl has cancer and has refused chemotherapy. Her parents did not want to force it on her against her will. The State DCF* heard about it and intervened and took the girl away from her parents in order to force her to undergo chemo even though she doesn't want it.

The girl now has a public defender and the parents also have retained counsel and both parties have filed suit against the DCF intervention. Case will go to state SCOTUS within the month.




* Department of Children and Families

Do you have a link for that? (Or did I miss it?)

Without more information, it is really hard to comment either way. From the way you presented it, a 17 y/o has a good chance of being deemed decisional and thus can make medical decisions. I feel there is more to the story as I have never heard of a DCF or equivalent acting in this way. Additionally, most cases that have gotten this far have a huge backstory and a lot of work put in by both sides. I would bet an ethics committee is involved.

I would also add that the term "chemotherapy" is very broad and may be used to sensationalize the story. The horrible images is brings up in all of us may not actually be side effects of her particular therapy, but without more information, it is impossible to tell.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

hmm...the TV news story said that the girl had a public defender representing her in a lawsuit against DCF. Would be odd for her to have both a guardian ad litem and a public defender "representing" her even though they would also be opposed to each other?

Having both personal counsel and a guardian ad litem is not unusual. Retained or court appointed counsel's obligation is to advocate the child's wishes. The guardian ad litem's obligation is to advocate the child's best interests. They can be, and often are, different. People who go through guardianships due to incompetency are often in this situation, and the two attorneys often have conflicting positions. The person wants to continue living at home without a guardian, and his or her attorney's job is to advocate that position, even if the guardian ad litem feels it is clearly in the person's best interest to be placed outside the home.

 

[unofan]

hmm...the TV news story said that the girl had a public defender representing her in a lawsuit against DCF. Would be odd for her to have both a guardian ad litem and a public defender "representing" her even though they would also be opposed to each other?

Public defenders are criminal defense attorneys. Guardian ad litems are appointed attorneys who represent a person who is legally incapable of representing themself, normally due to age.

Now maybe this state uses public defender to mean guardian ad litem, but the better guess is the reporter got it wrong. The next time I see a general newspaper reporter get a legal concept correct will be the first.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I understand the legal reasoning...but ultimately it should always be her choice. This bs where officials can force someone to take a treatment they dont want is ridiculous. It is her body and her life.

If she was ten I could see it, but 16/17 is old enough to consent to sex in most states for chrissakes. She she can consent to screw but cant choose not to take chemotherapy? I wonder why that is...

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I understand the legal reasoning...but ultimately it should always be her choice. This bs where officials can force someone to take a treatment they dont want is ridiculous. It is her body and her life.

If she was ten I could see it, but 16/17 is old enough to consent to sex in most states for chrissakes. She she can consent to screw but cant choose not to take chemotherapy? I wonder why that is...

I don't know, but maybe a more focused question would provide a closer analogy.

If a minor plans to have sex with a someone known to be carrying the ebola virus and the parents refuse to do anything to stop it, should the County be able to intervene? Granted, that's not the best analogy either.

The question is not whether the county (or state) can decide for her but whether the county should be able to get the issue before a judge.

Personally, I'd prefer to let most 17 year-olds make that decision, but when you set arbitrary age limitations you get those results.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I understand the legal reasoning...but ultimately it should always be her choice.

What if she was mentally handicapped? What if she was drunk? What if whatever condition she is requiring treatment for does not allow her to make any rational decisions? There are grey areas. Ultimately, it should not always be the choice of the individual. With what info was provided, there is no meaningful way to criticize the situation because there is no meaningful information presented.

This bs where officials can force someone to take a treatment they dont want is ridiculous. It is her body and her life.

Situations like this happen every day. 99% are resolved with better communication between parties, before an ethics committee is even considered. Again, I would be willing to bet that the medical teams position would sound quite rational to most people if we had all of the information (which for the child's sake, should probably be withheld anyway). It can be a PR nightmare for a hospital to fight against a patient's wishes/parent's wishes, so if I am not in-the-know, I assume they probably have a pretty good reason to do so.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

What if she were mentally handicapped? What if she were drunk? What if whatever condition she is requiring treatment for does not allow her to make any rational decisions? There are grey areas. Ultimately, it should not always be the choice of the individual. With what info was provided, there is no meaningful way to criticize the situation because there is no meaningful information presented.



Situations like this happen every day. 99% are resolved with better communication between parties, before an ethics committee is even considered. Again, I would be willing to bet that the medical teams position would sound quite rational to most people if we had all of the information (which for the child's sake, should probably be withheld anyway). It can be a PR nightmare for a hospital to fight against a patient's wishes/parent's wishes, so if I am not in-the-know, I assume they probably have a pretty good reason to do so.

That dang voice of reason.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

She isnt drunk and she isnt handicapped but nice try.

She knows the risks, she is the one with the disease so why exactly cant she decide?

If she was 18 would you be for this?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Oh stop it. We have all said we don't know the details and have made a number of qualifiers.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

How do you know she knows the risks? That she understands them?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Links:

Story 1
Story 2
Story 3 (w/video)

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

http://foxct.com/2015/01/02/connecticut-teen-forced-to-undergo-chemo-against-her-wishes/

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-teen-battles-chemo-order-0103-20150102-story.html

Doesnt sound like she is some gullible kid.

Answer the question...if she was 18 would you be ok with this?

edit: Priceless posted one of the above links.

 

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

http://foxct.com/2015/01/02/connecticut-teen-forced-to-undergo-chemo-against-her-wishes/

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-teen-battles-chemo-order-0103-20150102-story.html

Thank you (and Priceless) for the links. I suspected it would be something like Hodgkin's lymphoma because these type of disagreements tend to happen over things that have very effective treatments that have a significantly impact on survival. It would be less likely to get to this point over something like pancreatic cancer since treatment is quite invasive and minimally effective.

Doesnt sound like she is some gullible kid.

Gullible and decisional capacity are very different things. I do not like to diagnose from afar so I will punt on that evaluation.

Answer the question...if she was 18 would you be ok with this?

To be honest, it depends. I can think of scenarios from a medical standpoint that could make me go either way. However, from what I can tell, both sides seem to be acting in (reasonably) appropriate ways and the court may be the best place to settle this. I am far from a legal expert so others may have more to add on that aspect.

I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of 17 years and 364 days vs 18 years. I lack both the necessary education on the legal aspect as well as a strong enough opinion on either side to enter into that.

I said what I said earlier in an attempt to broaden your viewpoint on the below blanket statements.

but ultimately it should always be her choice. This bs where officials can force someone to take a treatment they dont want is ridiculous. It is her body and her life.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I am not going to go down the rabbit hole of 17 years and 364 days vs 18 years. I lack both the necessary education on the legal aspect as well as a strong enough opinion on either side to enter into that.

Legally it makes all the difference in the world. At 18 you are an adult. At 17 & 364/365, you're still a minor.

Now, most courts are supposed to treat such persons differently than they would a 2 year old. The older the minor, the more their wishes are supposed to be taken into consideration as they are supposed to be deemed more capable of independent decisions than someone younger. That's why teens can be brought into adult court for serious offenses, but the same crime committed by a 7 year old would always wind up in juvenile court. The parents' wishes are also supposed to be taken into account, though are not as sactrosanct as the child's own wishes (there's plenty of cases of states forcing children of Jehovah's witnesses to accept blood transfusions, for instance).

Frankly, I would hope most judges would let 17 year olds decide for themselves absent extenuating circumstances like mental impairment or drug abuse. But who knows, maybe she caught the judge on a bad day or something.

edit: or, having now read the article, apparently Connecticut hasn't officially adopted that form of reasoning, and they treat all minors alike. That's what she's fighting in court to get changed.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

38 years ago we were debating this.

At what point does the State's interest outweigh the person's? In this case, I would prefer the Connecticut legislature to examine their laws regarding competency and revise them if necessary.

I don't particularly like the courts stepping in in place of the legislature, but when an arm of the State takes custody of my kid, asserting that they know best, then the courts are necessary to stop overreach.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Legally it makes all the difference in the world. At 18 you are an adult. At 17 & 364/365, you're still a minor.

Now, most courts are supposed to treat such persons differently than they would a 2 year old. The older the minor, the more their wishes are supposed to be taken into consideration as they are supposed to be deemed more capable of independent decisions than someone younger. That's why teens can be brought into adult court for serious offenses, but the same crime committed by a 7 year old would always wind up in juvenile court. The parents' wishes are also supposed to be taken into account, though are not as sactrosanct as the child's own wishes (there's plenty of cases of states forcing children of Jehovah's witnesses to accept blood transfusions, for instance).

Frankly, I would hope most judges would let 17 year olds decide for themselves absent extenuating circumstances like mental impairment or drug abuse. But who knows, maybe she caught the judge on a bad day or something.

edit: or, having now read the article, apparently Connecticut hasn't officially adopted that form of reasoning, and they treat all minors alike. That's what she's fighting in court to get changed.

Like most states, Connecticut has an emancipation statute. http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_815t.htm#sec_46b-150

What that means is that if this girl were married, or if she lived out on her own and supported herself, she would have a right to petition to be "emancipated" from her parents and have the same legal right as other adults to decide her own medical fate.

In light of this, it certainly seems implied that Connecticut, like other states, considers 17 year olds to have at least some ability to rationally make decisions like this.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

So this cancer story has started to hit the mainstream circuits quite a bit more and the mom gave an interview (maybe more) as well. From the sounds of it, and I could have completely misheard her, she was essentially thinking this would just go away and she'd get better. "She doesn't want to put poison in her body." It was a really bizarre interview.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

I heard some more background on the 17-yr old CT teen with cancer. Doctor A diagnosed her and recommended chemo. The mother asked for a copy of her daughter's medical records and said she wanted to get a second opinion before agreeing to follow through on Doctor A's prescription. Doctor A then called DFS and asked for the daughter to be removed from parental care.

If true, this detail sheds a whole different, unsavory light on the whole picture.