Tags: Chemo | Teen | Violates | Rights

Forced Chemo for Teen Violates Rights

By
Thursday, 15 Jan 2015 11:14 AM Current | Bio | Archive

Swarms of government agents descended, quickly identifying the target. Physically removing her from the premises, they placed her in custody, warning her accomplice, at the risk of harsh consequences, not to interfere. And in an instant, they were gone, whisking the “perp” to a location where she was placed under 24/7 guard.
 
The authorities then strapped her down, sedated her, surgically implanted a port in her chest, and forcibly injected her with potent chemicals. Her cooperation was now guaranteed, whether she liked it or not.
 
Was this the work of heroic CIA operatives apprehending a terrorist, into whom they injected truth serum to gain valuable intelligence?
 
Not even close.
Appallingly, it was the work of government officials in The People’s Republic of Connecticut. And the target? Not a foreign operative, but a 17½ year-old girl with cancer, who, in agreement with her single-parent mother, had opted for alternative remedies to chemotherapy.
 
In one of the most egregious acts of Big Brother strong-arming citizens under the warped rationale that it knows best, an individual’s rights were eviscerated in favor of nanny-state government and arrogant doctors. The patient, Cassandra C., had her input, and that of her mother, summarily dismissed, and was forced to undergo chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
 
Virtually cut off from the outside world (her cell and hospital phone were removed), and with her mother being given limited visitation (Cassandra was placed under legal control of the Department of Children and Families), Cassandra has been undergoing her ordeal alone. Chemotherapy and cancer are hellacious enough, but making someone endure it by themselves, against their will? Is this America? Where is the justice?
 
There isn’t any, as Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that Cassandra’s rights were not violated.
 
The real sickness is heavy-handed governmental intrusion, a cancer eating away at America’s rights. The Connecticut case is simply the latest example of what is becoming government’s standard operating procedure: “It’s our way, or our way; take your pick.”
 
Consider:
 
1) This case isn’t about cancer or chemotherapy. Infinitely more important, it’s about the individual being the best entity to determine what is best for him or her. Naturally, this type of case invokes powerful emotions, but it is critical that we don’t allow the government to run roughshod over our rights, no matter how well-intentioned the authorities may be.
 
2) Doctors claim the chemo offers a high rate of success. No argument. But since nothing is guaranteed, what happens if Cassandra happens to be one who doesn’t respond positively? By then, will it be too late to try alternative remedies?
 
What happens if she incurs permanent side effects, since chemo can have wicked consequences? (Chemo, is, by definition, toxic).
 
And what happens if Cassandra dies of infection or from the chemo itself? Who will take “responsibility?” The doctors who reported her and her mother? The bureaucrats who took her away? The Supreme Court justices? And what does “responsibility” even mean? “Sorry, Mom. We rolled the dice. You lost. And so did Cassandra. It happens.” Nothing can bring back a child. And Cassandra’s mother would forever wonder if an alternative therapy would’ve saved her only child’s life.
 
3) Who are doctors and government officials to tell us “with certainty” what works? Many people swear by alternative remedies; since virtually all medications are derived from natural substances, who is to say they aren’t effective? All the more reason individuals should have the right to decide for themselves.
 
4) How can Connecticut possibly reconcile the fact that it won’t allow a girl seven months removed from her 18th birthday to choose her own medicinal path, yet it allows a minor, at virtually any age, to have an abortion without any parental notification or judge’s consent?
 
It makes absolutely no difference where you stand on abortion; the point is consistency. Or, more aptly, the appalling lack of it. Connecticut’s hypocrisy is unprecedented.
 
5) It would be different if Cassandra was considerably younger. But since she is as capable of understanding her situation now as she will be in seven months, she should have been given the choice.
 
If she and her mother disagreed (or, in other cases, if two parents disagreed), that would justifiably change the dynamic. And if the mother had financial motive (huge life insurance policy) or a history of abuse, this would also factor into backing the government’s decision. But we know none to be applicable, making the state’s actions deplorable.
 
No matter how crazy or irresponsible we think a decision to be (and that in no way implies Cassandra and her mother were irresponsible), it’s no one’s business what another rational adult does, so long as that action doesn’t adversely affect anyone else. It’s called live-and-let-live, aka freedom.
 
God help us for playing God.
 
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, Freindly Fire Zone Media. Read more reports from Chris Freind — Click Here Now.
 
 

© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 
1Like our page
2Share
Freind
The Connecticut case is simply the latest example of what is becoming government’s standard operating procedure: “It’s our way, or our way; take your pick.”
Chemo, Teen, Violates, Rights
821
2015-14-15
Thursday, 15 Jan 2015 11:14 AM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved