Althouse: "I was strapped to a bed by my wrists and ankles and sedated.... I woke up in the recovery room with a port surgically placed in my chest. I was outraged and felt completely violated."

January 10, 2015

"I was strapped to a bed by my wrists and ankles and sedated.... I woke up in the recovery room with a port surgically placed in my chest. I was outraged and felt completely violated."

"How long is a person actually supposed to live, and why?... I care about the quality of my life, not just the quantity."

73 comments:

Hagar said...: My sister has undergone one series of radiation therapy for cancer that did not take, and the NHS told her she could choose betwen another round of radiation and a refillable prescription for Oxycontin.
She took the Oxycontin.; 1/10/15, 4:57 PM
The Godfather said...: What are her chances of survival with and without the treatment, and would "survival" involve a substantial degradation of her quality of life?; 1/10/15, 4:58 PM
James Pawlak said...: If I had such "therapy" inflicted on me the cost of administering it would be measured in "deaths and gravely injured" medics.; 1/10/15, 5:04 PM
Jimmy said...: It is more important for Doctors(some) to have the longevity stats. They know best, the patient is simply a number, and a draw on an insurance policy.
turning someone into a vegetable isn't quality of life, its good for stats, nothing more.
I've watched as three of my family were "kept alive" by such doctors. False hopes, huge bills.; 1/10/15, 5:06 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: This is a survivable cancer. Even stage 4 has a 65% survival rate. That can only be better for a young person.

She was trying to kill herself.; 1/10/15, 5:07 PM
LCB said...: I'm confused. It's her body if she wants to have an abortion but not her body if she doesn't want chemo.

I believe in a woman's right to choose...whether I agree with her decision or not. Nothing I have read leads me to believe this 17 year old isn't competent to make her own decision. The court is agreeing with the doctors because "doctors know best".; 1/10/15, 5:16 PM
Hagar said...: More likely to avoid criticism from the media and those who believe different and their beliefs should rule.; 1/10/15, 5:24 PM
mezzrow said...: I understand the point of the piece, but then I think of celebrating my friend's sixtieth birthday last year - he was diagnosed with Hodgkins about forty years ago.

This is likely a good thing done in the state's usual hamhanded and brutal way.; 1/10/15, 5:45 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Within the first sentence I doubted too much to read any further.

How many police were banging on her door that night.

Why lie?

Lie because 1) only rubes and naive shitheels don't and 2) writing "a cop knocked on my door" doesn't make Our Most Gracious host link.; 1/10/15, 5:58 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Some men die for Obama's war-causes, you hear of them not by design and for good reason.

I will let you know when to hear and where to hear it, until then, most respectfully, we submit you continue education and clarification.

The clarifying is too much for some, most everyone not law related it may seem in meatspace timeingly, yet that is how the things we see in our mind become things others, others even far from your liking or understanding, come to see the light of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior.; 1/10/15, 6:06 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Things Others is the new Pans Labrynth, ^**+*#; 1/10/15, 6:30 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Literally with billions of things, any given instant, going on in a human brain, the singular will to advancing human life while never disregarding it is 100% not possible without divine intervention.

Duh.; 1/10/15, 6:33 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Science has taught us what science has taught us.

Science hasn't taught an awful lot, ^**+^'; 1/10/15, 6:37 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Oh oh you can't prove a negative..."

The !',^# I €£*^^+^*" can't you €^**%£¥**^ of a ><€££*^^+£€.

By God.; 1/10/15, 6:39 PM
Skyler said...: Me, I would want to live. My wife, however, had hodgkins in her twenties and has told me she will never again agree to that treatment, it is so terrible.

This is a terrible position for the government, who is rightly responsible for protecting children from abusive parents. But the question as to whether the parent is abusive has been answered incorrectly in this case.

Is it reasonable to convince a child to shun medical treatment when many people have described the horror of the treatment as being barely endurable? Can a person reasonably decide that 85% risk is not enough? I think yes and I think the government has overstepped its rightful authority.

I would not want to be one of the people who did this to that child. I would be forever looking over my shoulder for the righteous revenge.; 1/10/15, 6:48 PM
JCCamp said...: It sounds like a teenager is parroting her mother's views. This is a very survivable cancer, and once the course of chemo is complete, her life will continue, presumably to old age. So I think the state has taken the correct action, and indeed, the article is somewhat guilty of hyperbole, suggesting cops crashing in the door, storming the castle, blah blah blah. When this girl is grown with children of her own, she will be grateful for the intervention, since her prognosis without the chemo is something approaching zero to perhaps 2 years.; 1/10/15, 7:01 PM
Larry J said...: After watching my brother lose his battle with lymphoma three years and seeing what the chemo did to him, I can understand the girl's point of view. When I came home to see him a couple weeks before he died, I literally wouldn't have recognized him until I saw an old scar on his forehead.; 1/10/15, 7:05 PM
Indigo Red said...: The cult of life must be stopped.; 1/10/15, 7:12 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Oh, and and yo, were as'ing it be, Denver paid off all refs years ago.

But with a focus on going to Boston, just because it is filled with such happy-full assholes, it is better for the Cosmos for Denver to win there, if the Colts don't >^€* it all up.; 1/10/15, 7:23 PM
Sydney said...: I question the mother's judgement just on the basis of allowing a 16 year old to get a tattoo. The article says the child was given a chance in court to prove she was a mature minor, capable of making her own decisions, but failed to do so. I'm going to give the state the benefit of the doubt on this one. I've seen too many young people with parents who are just as immature as they are. (And the drama of the telling makes me think even moreso that this is the case here.); 1/10/15, 7:32 PM
Bob R said...: Well of course, it IS a drug raid. Except the state is making you take them instead of preventing you. Codswallop.; 1/10/15, 7:32 PM
lee said...: The prognosis for a teenage girl with Hodgkin's who gets chemo is 98%. This girl is an idiot.; 1/10/15, 7:36 PM
Bob R said...: We are expected to believe that the Connecticut Department of Children and Families is more able to make rational decisions than a 16-year-old girl. Assumes facts not in evidence.; 1/10/15, 7:38 PM
Gahrie said...: If the government has the power to force you to undergo treatment against your wishes, doesn't it also have the power to deny you treatment against your wishes?; 1/10/15, 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: I was at first aghast when I saw the headline yesterday, somehow assuming the it was a recurrence that they were declining chemo for, which it was NOT. The mom wanted to pursue alternative treatments for a first-occurrence cancer that has 90%+ chance of success? Shocks me to say this, but the state was correct.

Recently having gone the cancer/port/chemo/radiation route, of course it sucks! Yes you look like you are dying, duh. Chemo kills cells, good and cancerous--they are keeping you just this side of alive, whadda suppose you are going to look like? Still not as bad I'm sure as a few days after you are dead!

And you up there, "oh how terrible my brother looked" whadda expect? Think he'd of looked of any better sans chemo with all the cancer literally eating him up? Would it have made it okay if he was oh, say, due to ignoring doctors and trying an alternative therapy of 14 burgers a day, now 400lbs and then got into an altercation and subsequently had a fatal heart attack? Sure you would have recognized his fat ass and face, not just his scar. So how does that make it any better/different? At least the guy tried to live, and often times, especially women (and often purely for vanity reasons) choose not to even try chemo for the first occurrence. Odd. Again, yes, it sucks (and I get declining it for an aggressive recurrence) but if you are puking--you are...alive!; 1/10/15, 8:23 PM
Gahrie said...: So the government is not allowed to keep crazy people in a hospital against thier will, but can administer poison to you against your will.

Keeping people in mental institutions against their will is better for them than allowing them to live on the streets isn't it?; 1/10/15, 8:53 PM
Michael K said...: Oh for fuck's sake ! Let Darwin's Law work !; 1/10/15, 9:01 PM
Michael K said...: "After watching my brother lose his battle with lymphoma three years and seeing what the chemo did to him, I can understand the girl's point of view."

Non-Hodkins lymphoma has a much worse prognosis, even with treatment. I would let her die but then I am a "caring physician." Just think of the kids who could have used that chemotherapy.; 1/10/15, 9:03 PM
Michael K said...: " The mom wanted to pursue alternative treatments for a first-occurrence cancer that has 90%+ chance of success? Shocks me to say this, but the state was correct. "

Steve Jobs, as he was dying, regretted using "alternative treatment" when his cancer was till curable.; 1/10/15, 9:05 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Having had chemotherapy I don't think the state has the right to make this decision. The severity of its effects varies considerably, depending on the cancer and the patient, but for many it is an appalling torture, pure and simple.; 1/10/15, 9:12 PM
Alex said...: Bottom line the state has no right to enforce medical services on a person. This is fascism.; 1/10/15, 9:21 PM
Jon Burack said...: Amazing how sure so many are. I am with the state on this one, though I have had close experiences with people with chemo where I regretted they went through it and with others who I am glad went through it. One was a small boy, very close, who had exactly this disease. Had he or his parents done what this girl is doing, he'd be gone. He is instead still here ten years later. Tell me it would have been fascist for a state to force him to go through with this. It won't register with me.; 1/10/15, 9:26 PM
Big Mike said...: Oh dear! I'm agreeing with ARM. I haven't had chemo but like most people I know someone who has. It's pretty rough.; 1/10/15, 9:26 PM
Bob Boyd said...: If the girl and her mother had specified religious reasons for refusing treatment the article would have a different tone.; 1/10/15, 9:30 PM
The Godfather said...: Early in this thread I asked what the girl's chances of survival were with and without treatment, and whether survival would involve a substantial degradation of her quality of life. The only commenters who addressed those issues in what seemed to me to be a knowledgeable fashion said that, with treatment, she'd have a 90% or better chance of surviving and living a normal life.

So then the question is, do we as a society say that a child should be allowed to refuse the treatment that would save her life?

Because the girl IS a child. Recently I read on this blog that some say that young people aren't really mature until they're in their mid-20's -- this was in connection with a death penalty issue, as I recall. Still, if we as a society decide that you become an adult at age X, then that's the rule we use. If the girl is "almost" an adult, that means she ISN'T an adult now.

The court apparently has the authority under Connecticut law to decide whether a child is mature enough to exercise an adult's decision-making rights regarding her medical treatment. The court said she isn't. Until we review the evidence, how can we say the judge is wrong?

I'm pretty libertarian on issues like this, and certainly if an adult decided to forego medical treatment I'd say he or she had the right to do so. And on the vast majority of issues, I would trust a parent over the state to make decisions about what is best for a child. But if the prospects for survival are as the commenters here say, and if the girl is not mature enough to make a decision for herself, as the judge says, then I say, save her life, and let her gripe about it for the next 70 years.; 1/10/15, 9:37 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I set up a situation where you are the one, the fool wereasit, arguing for the concept you are "100%" right.

Your're tomorrow dumb to see it. I set you up. You are the one arguing for 100% this and/or that.

I am using rhetoric combined with logic to defeat you in earnest, shall continuing to be able to do so likewise futurararly I abide to.; 1/10/15, 9:47 PM
wildswan said...: I spent a year helping a seven year old endure chemo and then radiation. We believed he would go on to be strong and happy and we disregarded him looking like an Auschwitz survivor for a time. Being a kid he followed what the adults around him believed and he IS now strong and happy.
I'm not sure this teenager can make it through the ordeal if her parents don't believe in the outcome and lead the way. But she isn't choosing, it's her parents. And the state can't take their place.; 1/10/15, 9:58 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Darwin means strong humans kill weak humans.

It doesn't mean the USA defeats the Nazis. Tell us about Darwin's understanding of Einstein you nitcunt.

This "I see it and say it and who the Hell are you wing nut" shit was old old 70 years ago.

God and Man at Yale douche.

You like credentials? Or do you like your own credentials? WFB and God and Man at Yale will be around next year. You or me, not so much.; 1/10/15, 9:59 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: By the way I know real innovators in the medical field. I brought up ethanol as a political issue without any possible solid rational save graft, and a real MD told me in undergrad school earning his engineering degree at UT he tried as a group project figuring out how to make ethanol energy efficient.

He couldn't do it.

But the most corrupt amongst demand more money and more power and more influence and no oversight: they are too smart to explain why so take their expertise as your faith infidel.; 1/10/15, 10:03 PM
Jane the Actuary said...: The very fact that this girl rejected the chemo because she was unwilling to tolerate the short term pain, in itself, says she's not mature enough to make the decision to reject it.

Kind of circular, I know.

If she were an adult she could make all manner of bad decisions. But she's still a minor. And as such, if she fears the pain of chemo, or doesn't comprehend that "alternative" treatments won't work, but chemo will save her life, she still doesn't get to make that decision.; 1/10/15, 10:11 PM
Danno said...: After reading the comments, my only thought is that "NotquiteunBuckley may need an intervention by the state. He appears to be going off the deep end!; 1/10/15, 10:11 PM
Bob R said...: The only important question is, when can the government take your 16 year old body away from your parents, strap your to a gurney, and inject toxic drugs into you. The work "never" springs to my mind.

I agree that the girl should go through the chemo. The idea that I should put a gun to her (and her parents') head to force her to take the drugs sickens me.; 1/10/15, 10:14 PM
Terry said...: NotquiteunBuckley wrote:

I am using rhetoric combined with logic to defeat you in earnest, shall continuing to be able to do so likewise futurararly I abide to.

You have been warned, sheeple!; 1/10/15, 10:17 PM
Alex said...: The Godfather - some kids under 18 speak with a wisdom that belies their years. Why assign an arbitrary legal # to their ability to make medical decisions for themselves?; 1/10/15, 10:20 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Most are too stupid, meaning not at all reasonable, to understand How The Irish Saved Civilization.

They take facts they like others discoverd, or created, consider themselves more knowledgable than others, and use the scarcity of knowledge as a pathetic way to gain status.

Well the facts are without belief inGod there would be no America.

There would be less other things too.

Too idiotic to look truthfully at history, as it doesn't ego-stroke the same as UCLA, the prison of self-presumed competency in fields other-than-what-you-were-just-taught and hence have other-than competency in frightens.

And my anonymous nature is a weakness I agree. Someday, you'll see, I won't be living in a big old city.

Then I won't question "why ya gotta be so mean?"; 1/10/15, 10:22 PM
Bob R said...: “I was strapped to a bed by my wrists and ankles and sedated,” she wrote in the essay, which was accompanied by a photo of her in the hospital. “I woke up in the recovery room with a port surgically placed in my chest."

God. It almost sounds as if she had encountered manspreading. Fortunately, it wasn't that bad.; 1/10/15, 10:35 PM
Michael K said...: "Bottom line the state has no right to enforce medical services on a person. This is fascism."

Oh, I agree. With kids it is more of a question. I remember a case where a women came in with free air in her belly, obviously a perforated colon. She refused surgery. I let her die. The intern was outraged and wanted me to operate on her after she lost consciousness. Nope. She made her decision.

Another case was a 74 year old guy with a ruptured aneurysm. He said he wanted to die. He did agree to let me reverse his anticoagulation. When it was reversed and his clotting was normal, I said, "OK now is the time to decide. If you want me to let you die, I will."

He said, "I want to live." And so he did. He survived repair of his rupturing aneurysm and a month post-op, when he came into the office with his wife, He said, "I wish you had let me die ."

I wished the wife well with such a jerk. He had the wrong guy if he wanted to die.; 1/10/15, 10:42 PM
traditionalguy said...: It's her cancer and she'll keep it if she wants to!; 1/10/15, 10:48 PM
Carl Pham said...: Fascinating mother. What a shame she didn't get the cancer. I'd be very happy to see her choose death.; 1/10/15, 11:25 PM
n.n said...: We rarely hear from those without a voice. Certainly not from The New York Times, which was embarrassed by their belief in a fairy tale, that lead to operation of Gosnell's little clinic of horrors. And Hebdo laughed and laughed at other faiths and religions, and reality was an uncomfortable reminder of their self-parody.; 1/10/15, 11:38 PM
chickelit said...: Cancer is a growth opportunity.; 1/11/15, 12:00 AM
Anonymous said...: People seem to be confusing non-hodgkins lymphoma (which sounds better!)and hodgkins. With treTment she should lead a long life.

I agree with the doctors. Let's face it folks, if she died, what are the chances this koi koo all natural mom would have sued. That's the issue.

Stupid Steve Jobs wanted to cure his rare highly survivable version of pancreatic cancer and he chose the coffee enemas until it was too late. Fool. Oh, and he was Mr Natural before that which didn'trevent the cancer.

My mother had -pnegative stage 1 cancer (as best I can describe ) at 75 a few years ago. People are so freaked out about the horror of cancer treatment and not dying with dignity, she just wanted to die. My idiot brother was all "respect her wishes" where the girls (1 cancer survivor among us) said that's nuts. It was surgery and one round of radiation for good measure. 5 years later and enjoying her greT grandchildren her only regret is not having a totL mastectomy because who needs em. That's all.

You have to judge each case. All cancer is not equal. This case the mother is negligent. Sorry.

Verify is Tittu. Seriously?; 1/11/15, 3:23 AM
wendybar said...: I know the mother. She IS a whack job. That said, if the girl insists on not having Chemo....let her go. When she dies, and the mother realizes how stupid her suggestion was, at least she wouldn't be able to sue.; 1/11/15, 4:17 AM
lgv said...: I know it is not very libertarian of me, but my opinion is formed by experiences of Christian Scientists not seeking medical attention for there children. Their "alternative medicine" was prayer.

Despite Althouse's aversion to suicide, let's force this youngster to get treatment and give her the option of offing herself without penalty on the fifth anniversary of her treatment. Let's see how she views it in hindsight while 21 and living.

This is Hodgkins, not stage 4 pancreatic cancer. Should the state intervene when children and their parents make poor decisions? Maybe, maybe not, but we already allow it. And this poor decision will result in the death of this girl.; 1/11/15, 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: This kid has a bad mother. Give her the chemo. This is very tolerable chemo, and she will be cured. She's pissed off she has cancer, and she's displacing her anger onto the medical establishment. She is not making rational decisions, and her mother is nuts. Poor child. Saving her life is the right thing to do.; 1/11/15, 5:34 AM
tim maguire said...: Folks here who are sympathetic to the girl based on their own terrible experience with chemotherapy many years ago should know it is a very different experience today. Anti-nausea drugs have minimized most of the side effects such that recovery from treatment is easier and most patients actually gain rather than lose weight.

When I read the quoted passage, I thought this would be about an 85 year old who wants to die with dignity. But instead I see it's a teenager whose mind has been poisoned by her mother.; 1/11/15, 5:59 AM
iowan2 said...: First one has to decide if the government has the power to force citizens to do things they dont want.

Once you have given the govenment that power. It is the end of the the discussion.

You get the government you want.; 1/11/15, 6:49 AM
ilvuszq said...: LCB makes a good point. Now it is a womans right to kill another but not her right to kill herself.; 1/11/15, 6:56 AM
Mike L said...: Michael K
I had a similar situation as a resident. The man did not want surgery because he was afraid of having a colostomy. We said that he was delirious and did the surgery anyway and afterwards he was immensely grateful that we did. These are very difficult situations. It is hard to know what is legal and harder to know what is right. My teachers always told me to do what I thought was right, because legally you can get in trouble no matter what you do. That being said, I would appreciate hearing from Althouse or the other lawyers about the legal issues here. My understanding is that it is complicated and there have previously been decisions supporting both sides.; 1/11/15, 8:13 AM
jr565 said...: I remember the movie The End with Burt Reynolds. He has some disease and is going to die so he gets Dom Deluise to kill him. They keep trying and failing. Finally he swims out into the ocean to kill himself. When he's underwater he realizes he wants to live.
then swims back to shore. Where he sees Dom Deluise who starts chasing him with a knife. And the movie ends with Dom chasing him down the beach even though he's screaming to not kill him.
Even if a patient says they want to die, I'm not sure if that the default position should be to let them die. Because they may not be arguing from a rational mind, and it may not be the doctors job to assist with their suicide.; 1/11/15, 8:31 AM
jr565 said...: Should we allow crazy people to determine they don't need to take their meds? Closing up all the insane asylums just meant people who should be medicated are now on the street and homeless.; 1/11/15, 8:34 AM
jr565 said...: jim murray wrote:
LCB makes a good point. Now it is a womans right to kill another but not her right to kill herself.

It's not a doctors roll though to assist in suicide. She can kill herself on her own dime.; 1/11/15, 8:36 AM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: For me, given her age and the probability of success, having the chemo is a fairly straightforward decision. But, there is no fucking way that the state has the right to make her take these drugs.

All the authoritarians insisting that the state has this right are in no position to complain about the state's much milder public health initiatives, such as seat belts, air bags, helmets or even limits on calories. In fact there is almost no limit to the state's power once you accept that it can force someone to undergo poisoning over a prolonged period, even if that treatment has long-term therapeutic value.; 1/11/15, 8:58 AM
Fernandinande said...: NotquiteunBuckley said...
Darwin means strong humans kill weak humans.

"Not even wrong."

jim murray said...
LCB makes a good point. Now it is a womans right to kill another but not her right to kill herself.

Ignoring that she's not actually killing herself, that kind of intellectual amusement results when human rights are a byproduct of government lawyers seeking the social approval of their peers.; 1/11/15, 9:07 AM
Hagar said...: If you agree that the state has the right to force this girl to take chemo against her and her legal guardian's wishes, you are also agreeing that the state in general has the right to make these kind of decisions, either way.

Thus when Obamacare now comes on line, and given its record so far, I think a number of insurance companies are going to find they have made bad actuarial calculations and will be in trouble. So the state says OK, we do not want the insurance companies to go broke so that we have to pay for the treatments with tax monies, so we will tell the companies to never mind what the policies say, you do not have to pay out for the elderly or otherwise terminally ill.
Are you OK with that?; 1/11/15, 9:08 AM
Hagar said...: And BTW, this is happening in Britain, except that the NHS is both the insurance company and the hospital.

And probably also in other countries with "single payer" systems.; 1/11/15, 9:12 AM
Amy said...: I went through a year of chemo and radiation five years ago. It was not easy, but I am very glad I did it.

Not sure of the intricacies of this case (forcing a minor to receive treatment against her and parents' wishes) but I do know that immediately after diagnosis, you are in no state to make rational decisions. There is so much anti-traditional-treatment material out there, the prospects of a medical regimen can seem beyond terrifying. For that reason, I now spend a fair amount of time with newly diagnosed women, describing what lies ahead and reassuring them (by my words and just by my EXISTENCE) that they can do it. Some input from survivors may have helped her see her future in different terms and help alleviate a standoff.

It is, above all, a very sad story.; 1/11/15, 11:13 AM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/11/15, 12:39 PM
n.n said...: If nothing else, this provides an opening to discuss Obamacare policies, including abortion and euthanasia, in order to reduce the "burden" or problem set. Perhaps a "Planned Parenthood" after birth.

Individual dignity suggests that her decision should take priority, from, say, birth (her mother has first rights or rites; her husband may have second rights). Intrinsic value suggests that her life should take priority, when reasonable people can reasonably believe that her judgment may be impaired (e.g. psychological trauma). The lawyers suggest that the priority is ambiguous and may incur years of financial flogging.; 1/11/15, 1:00 PM
Hagar said...: Dealing with Michael K. and Acme Insurance Co. is one thing; you add the power of the state and a sheriff's dept. SWAT team, and that is something entirely else.; 1/11/15, 1:30 PM
Alex said...: So the state tells a 17yo she has the right to decide whether or not she wants to abort the baby inside her, but she can't let the cancer grow inside her? What's the diff except for political agendas?; 1/11/15, 2:02 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/11/15, 3:12 PM
n.n said...: Alex:

Political and religious agendas, which may, in fact, not be separable. There is no practical implementation of a "secular" state. It just depends on whose moral consensus prevails, its scope in domestic and foreign affairs, and the degree to which it permits voluntary compliance.

A debate about individual dignity, intrinsic value, and everything is not forthcoming.; 1/11/15, 3:21 PM