Cancer in remission for teen forced to undergo chemo

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald-AP

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A 17-year-old girl's cancer appears to be in remission after she was forced to undergo chemotherapy by the state because she refused treatment, her lawyer said Monday.

A recent medical scan of the girl, identified in court documents only as Cassandra C., showed no signs of the Hodgkin lymphoma that was diagnosed in September, said assistant public defender Joshua Michtom. Cassandra's treatment is set to end next month after two more rounds of chemo, he said.

"As best they can tell, the cancer is gone," Michtom said.

Cassandra told The Associated Press on Monday that she still believes alternative treatments would have had the same result as chemotherapy.

FULL story at link.



(AP Photo/Pat Eaton-Robb
Jackie Fortin of Windsor Locks, Conn., right, stands outside the Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford, Conn., on Thursday, Jan. 8, 2015, with Judy Stephens, 51, a Connecticut woman who said she has survived brain cancer without chemotherapy. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state child protection officials aren't violating the rights of Fortin's 17-year-old daughter by forcing the girl to undergo cancer chemotherapy she doesn't want.

Read more: http://www.livewellnebraska.com/health/cancer-in-remission-for-teen-forced-to-undergo-chemo/article_38f7b59a-c68c-11e4-83b8-77c5b7414934.html

[Orrex]

1. That poor girl, forced to live cancer-free.

[brooklynite]

2. Am I to understand you believe a patient shouldn't decide for themselves?

As I mentioned before, my FIL ended his life under a Death With Dignity law. In other circumstances, it might have been required that Doctors apply medical procedures against his will. Where do you draw the line?

[Orrex]

3. Am I to understand that her cancer was terminal with no hope of survival?

I would in turn ask you where we draw the line.

If she'd suffered a broken leg instead of cancer, would you support her right to end her life under a Death With Dignity law?

[brooklynite]

5. I support the right of people to decide their own medical treatment...

...I do NOT support the right of people to decide on medical treatment for others, but I have no knowledge that that was the case here.

[Orrex]

12. Where do you draw the line?

Can a 17 year old refuse treatment?

Can a 14 year old?

Can a 10 year old?

And what medical conditions are subject to that sort of "oh, fuck it" decision-making?

A ten year old with a sniffle?


You seem to think that it's a simpler matter than it is.

[brooklynite]

14. It's precisely BECAUSE I don't think it's simple...

...that I choose to leave the decision up to the person in question.

I acknowledge that a 14 year old may not make the most informed decision, but neither am I prepared to let a parent decide for them, as long as "faith healing" et al is a possibility.

[Orrex]

16. Well, that's kind of the point

I acknowledge that a 14 year old may not make the most informed decision, but neither am I prepared to let a parent decide for them, as long as "faith healing" et al is a possibility.

Then it sounds like you're requiring that a person be be in full possession of the facts as they pertain to "faith healing." Or to bogus speculations about cancer outcomes, for example.

[PumpkinAle]

6. Her body, her right to choose

.... whatever the reason she should be free to make that choice. Period.

[Orrex]

9. If your healthy 17-year-old daughter told you she was going to kill herself

Would you shrug and say "her body, her right to choose" in that case?

[brooklynite]

11. Someone facing chemo is, by definition, not healthy...

...and how I would react to a daughter is something I can't answer, because I've decided not to have children. Setting emotions aside, I believe people should be able to decide these things for themselves.

[Orrex]

15. Well, now you're adding a stipulation

You wrote:

Someone facing chemo is, by definition, not healthy.

But that's irrelevant, because you also wrote:

Her body, her right to choose whatever the reason she should be free to make that choice. Period.

Therefore, whether she's on chemo or eating an ice cream cone on a Tuesday, she should be able to end her life right there.

Setting emotions aside, I believe people should be able to decide these things for themselves.

Setting emotions aside, you seem not to distinguish between a terminal patient with no hope of recovery and a happy, healthy person with 60 years to live. That simply doesn't strike me as a realistic approach to life.

[YarnAddict]

37. Someone with tonsilitis

or pneumonia is, by definition, not healthy either. What's your point?

[deurbano]

8. She's 17, and her odds of survival are 80-85% with treatment and 0 without.

I guess I would draw the line at legal adulthood, though that is certainly arbitrary in terms of maturity. Your FIL was almost 90, and apparently felt his quality of life was no long worth continuing. A very different situation.

[Orrex]

10. ^^That

[LeftyMom]

13. If I recall correctly a judge found she wasn't informed and rational enough to make the decision

and that she was being pressured and misinformed by her family. This is consistent with her comments after treatment, that alternative therapies would have cured her cancer too.

[dolphinsandtuna]

20. 0? How may times have doctors been wrong?

Let me count the ways. And now this girl will never be able to have children biologically, and her future risk of other cancers is much higher.

[HERVEPA]

26. Wow, such bullshit.

When doctors say 0, it means 0.0000000001
Spare me any anecdotes please.

[YarnAddict]

29. WHO says she can't have children biologically???????????

I am a Hodgkins survivor--29 years--and one of my nurses when I had my splenectomy was also a young Hodgkins survivor. She had her treatment, then had a recurrence, which was treated more aggressively, and THEN had two beautiful, healthy children.

You are FLAT. OUT. WRONG.

As for secondary cancers, yeah, that's a possibility, but nearly three decades on, it hasn't happened to me. Ask this woman, in 10 years, 20, 30, or even more, if the treatment was worth it. Not sure she is old enough, mature enough, or experienced enough at this point to give a rational answer.

[deurbano]

60. Dead people can't have biological children either.

Treatment will not necessarily take away her fertility. But even if it does (or even if she had pre-existing fertility issues that have nothing to do with cancer, as many men and women do), there are other options for creating a family.

[NickB79]

62. So she can adopt, or her and her partner can use a surrogate in the future

Your point being?

[dolphinsandtuna]

69. my point being

The government has no right to go around sterilizing children or anyone.

Health care decisions belong to the individual and in the case of a child, to the parents.

My God, if the government was going to force my child to have a treatment I and she thought was harmful and we knew also it would cause things like sterility, permanent nerve damage, possible future cancers, I'd be hiding out in the woods with her or sitting on my front porch with a shotgun.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/understandingchemotherapyaguideforpatientsandfamilies/understanding-chemotherapy-sex-fertility-and-chemo

Doctors have been wrong many, many times about survival. I myself was told in 2007 that I had six months to live.

[Corey_Baker08]

54. I Agree That At The Age Of 18 It Should Be Her Decision...

However this is my initial thought and I may be wrong because I wouldn't want a young woman to have to be 18 to get an abortion, However in life or death situations perhaps 18 should be the deciding age.

[ManiacJoe]

17. The right to choose was the issue at the center of this case.

> Am I to understand you believe a patient shouldn't decide for themselves?

The problem was that most folks involved with the case did not believe that the "choice" being voiced was that of the daughter but that of her mother instead.

[Omaha Steve]

21. I support brooklynite on this issue

The mother in this case supported the daughter.

This is not parents refusing a blood transfer to an infant over religion.

I'm terminal and don't want some do-gooder interfering on my end of life choices in my do-gooder state with no dignity law.

OS

[YarnAddict]

30. The difference is

that you are um, older, and have a terminal illness.

Neither is the case with this young woman.

[JonLP24]

4. VICE had some very recent reporting regarding recent breakthroughs in Cancer research

Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 03:09 AM - Edit history (1)

HIV is being injected into people who have cancer because they kill cancer cells keep in mind VICE could be overstating or I'd agree more than usual but the question from a Vice reporter using the word "cure" seems to be where the criticism revolves around

[mimi85]

18. As someone with leukemia,

this was an amazing show. It should be watched by everyone, cancer or not.

[Laffy Kat]

7. Gee, this is a hard one.

Hodgkin's is so very curable, even in the later stages. My husband was diagnosed with stage IV Hodgkin's in April of 2007 on his forty-sixth birthday. He underwent four cycles of chemo and was cancer free by August of 2007. After A LOT of research, he refused the other two chemo treatments ordered per protocol, as well as the radiation. He is still cancer free and considered "cured". He doesn't even have to have yearly PETs at this point. The other thing: the chemo. wasn't that bad (at least for him). He only missed one day of work during his illness and that was the day of his surgical biopsy. He complained about food "tasting metallic" during his treatment and he stopped drinking Dr. Pepper, but that was it. He didn't vomit once. Oh, and his hair began falling out so he shaved his head. It came back more beautiful than before. I absolutely believe a 17-year-old should be able to make decisions about their care, but man, this is a hard one.

[YarnAddict]

31. Not at all a hard decision, IMO

Congrats to your dh on his successful treatment.

I am also a Hodgkins survivor. I was 30 years old and 7 months pregnant when I was diagnosed. That was 29 years ago next month. Treatment that long ago was a little more difficult. I had major surgery (splenectomy, various biopsies, rearrangement of reproductive organs, etc.) When I was just back on my feet I started chemotherapy, then radiation, then more chemo. A year in all. Not being treated was an option, and a tempting one, but I felt I had a lot to live for.

In the last 29 years I have seen my two children grow to adulthood, attended both their high school and college graduations, my older son's wedding, and now am excitedly awaiting the birth of my first grandchild in a few months. I would have missed it all, if I had chosen to forego a year of treatment/torture/inconvenience/whatever.

Ask this girl in a few years, or decades, if her life has been worth living.

[Laffy Kat]

57. I sure hope I didn't sound like I was dissing anyone else's experience.

I know it wasn't too long ago that they used to administer Last Rites along with the chemo. Your story is incredibly poignant.

My point (I think) was that even though the choice seems obvious to most of us, there is a slippery slope when we legally force a young woman to do what others think is in her best interest. That's all.

Please accept my apology if I minimized your experience. Also, thanks for your input.

[YarnAddict]

58. Oh, no! I didn't get that impression at all!!!

The problem is that teenagers are notorious for taking a short-term view of things. There are thiings that other caring people should make on their behalf--like life or death decisions.

She needs a chance to live her life, and if it were up to her in this case, she wouldn't.

[Laffy Kat]

65. I know.

That's why I was so surprised her mother supported her decision. Her illness has such a good prognosis WITH treatment and will be fatal WITHOUT. The chemo. will more than likely result in infertility, but she can freeze ova first. Undoubtedly, her physicians and social workers tried to educate the family about what to expect and her prognosis. I don't get it.

[dolphinsandtuna]

19. no doubt sterile now, and who knows if she would have lived or died

if she'd had the freedom to choose.

[HERVEPA]

27. Again bullshit. The anti-science is palpable.

It's arguable whether she should have been forced. Not arguable she would have died.

[YarnAddict]

32. Bullshit.

Probably not sterile.

Don't know where you are getting your "facts."

[dolphinsandtuna]

68. my "facts" come from the anti-scientists at the American Cancer Society

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/chemotherapy/understandingchemotherapyaguideforpatientsandfamilies/understanding-chemotherapy-sex-fertility-and-chemo

In any event, it should be her decision, the government shouldn't be sterilizing innocent people.

Of course, I'm an anti-scientist myself, having degrees from MIT. Oh, wait, I look into the facts instead of jumping to conclusions. I guess I am a scientist after all.

[YarnAddict]

70. And I have personally known people

who had healthy children following treatment for Hodgkins disease.

My husband and I considered having a third child a few years after my Hodgkins treatment (surgery, ABVD, radiation, more ABVD) and underwent some medical testing and counseling. We were told to go ahead--no problems, no worries.

Our decision not to have another baby was based on factors other than my health and/or fertility.

This was more than a case of the government "sterilizing innocent people." This was a matter of life or death. If she were 80 and had a terminal illness and chose to forego treatment that would be a choice we should all respect. Neither was the case for this young woman. In this case, allowing her to choose the no treatment option would be equivalent to giving her a loaded handgun and instructions on the proper position to do the most self-harm.

In this case, the proper thing to do is to treat her and save her ife. If the cancer recurs she will be in a position to weigh the benefits of life vs. the inconvenience/side effects/whatever of treatment, and make an informed decision of whether more treatment is worthwhile.

BTW, your degrees from MIT don't impress me. I know very smart people who graduated from MIT and went nowhere. So--BFD.

[YarnAddict]

71. BTW, I read the article you linked

and it doesn't at all say what you seem to think it does.

Sex, fertility, and chemotherapy
Chemo can, but doesn’t always affect sexual organs and how they work. The possible side effects depend on the drugs used, your age, and your overall health.

I guess reading comprehension isn't necessary to graduate from MIT, huh?

[magical thyme]

22. this is not a simple situation, and I'm glad she'll be 18 soon

Longterm, she is now at increased risk for:

Second cancers: One uncommon but very serious side effect of Hodgkin disease treatment is developing a second type of cancer later on. People who have had Hodgkin disease have an increased risk for several types of cancer.

Fertility issues: A possible long-term effect of chemotherapy and radiation therapy, especially in younger patients, is reduced or lost fertility. (also early menopause)

Infections: For unknown reasons, the immune system of people with Hodgkin disease does not work properly. Treatments such as chemotherapy, and radiation or surgery to treat an enlarged spleen (splenectomy) can add to this problem.

Thyroid problems: (hypothyroidism) People who got radiation to the neck or upper chest should have their thyroid function checked with blood tests at least yearly.

Heart disease and strokes: Some chemo drugs such as doxorubicin (Adriamycin) and mitoxantrone can also cause heart damage. Your doctor might want to check your heart function several years after your treatment.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/hodgkindisease/detailedguide/hodgkin-disease-after-follow-up

I don't think it's as simple as some DUers are making it out to be. There is also the damage to her sense of self and the violation of her body and sense of control over her life, not unlike being kidnapped and repeatedly raped.

She may, or may not, end up relieved that her ordeal is over and she is free to get on with her life.

And I wonder how those same DUers would respond if she had been raped, and the government imprisoned her and forced her to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

[onecent]

23. I'm with you magical!!!!!

[CanSocDem]

24. Well said. n/t

[HockeyMom]

25. Don't think it cannot happen to an adult?

Think again,

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/bret-bohn/

Do we set an adult age on it? "We can cure/treat you". How old must an adult be to be declared incompetent for refusing medical treatment based on quality versus quantity of life? Over 65 fine? 20s or 30s too young?

Very dangerous. "If we can save just ONE life". No, not if that means taking away the right of an adult to make their own medical decisions.

Edit: Obviously, Cassandra has not changed her mind regarding this despite her "cure". If she needs more treatments after September when she turns 18, will she be running to these doctors then? Will they call Adult Protective Services on her when she becomes an adult and force more treatments on her?

[magical thyme]

43. horrifying. thank goodness he's finally been set free.

She needs to move to another state and stay away from hospitals and doctors if that is her wish.

Stories like these terrify me...

[HERVEPA]

28. As opposed to a 99.999999999% chance she would be dead.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Yup.

But at least she's still alive to keep whining that she should have been allowed to use acupuncture and homeopathy to treat cancer.

(Note: I chose the types of 'alternative treatments' at random - I don't know which particular form of woo she prefers. And I've got nothing against acupuncture for certain other issues, but not for disease.)

[YarnAddict]

35. Laetrile, maybe??

That was the miracle "alternative treatment" touted back when I was diagnosed. Wonder how many people's lives were significantly shortened due to that quackery.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Quite possibly, I'd blocked that particular nastiness from memory.

Too many grifters out there waiting to prey on the desperate.

[YarnAddict]

38. I can understand it

As I've mentioned multiple times in this thread, I was diagnosed with Hodgkins 29 years ago.

After my diagnosis my mother brought me a container of some miracle tea that would definitely cure me. I asked her flat out if she wanted me to drink the tea and forget about the chemo. She wouldn't commit to that. She just wanted to make sure I did everything I could.

I'm a mom. I can understand wanting your child (even if an adult) not to have to undergo the chemo side effects, but I also know the "other side"--which is that medical science offers the best possible outcome.

[magical thyme]

40. Maybe that was her preference. I'm sure they gave her the actual odds

of a spontaneous remission.

Once she's 18, if she gets a recurrance or develops another cancer, at least it will be her choice.

[HERVEPA]

59. Clearly brainwashed by dumb-ass parents.

[YarnAddict]

34. The average person's chance of dying

of something, sooner or later, is 100%. OMG!!!!!! No one should ever be treated for anything because they will eventually die anyway!!!!!!!!!

Look, this is an issue that is personal to me. I am a 29-year Hodgkins survivor.

I have not gotten (in 29 years) a secondary cancer.

I take thyroid medication daily, and have for 20 years. No big deal.

In the last 29 years I have been hospitalized twice--once for a broken leg, and once for a hysterectomy, neither of which was related to my Hodgkins Disease or treatment.

A few years after treatment we contemplated having a third child, and went through genetic counseling. They told us to go ahead--no issues. (Although we decided not to, based on other matters.)

I know people who have had kids post-chemotherapy. Sterility isn't a given.

"Sense of self issues" can be dealt with and overcome.

Know what can't be overcome??? DEATH!!!! That's pretty permanent.

[magical thyme]

41. and it was YOUR CHOICE to go through treatment

Nobody tied you down and forced it on you.

[YarnAddict]

42. I was old enough,

smart enough, and rational enough to make that choice. Cassandra isn't.

The option of death will always be availble to her. The option of life in this situation is a one-time thing.

Ask her in a few years if college was worth undergoing chemo. Or if falling in love was. Or if travel was. I'm willing to bet she will be able to dredge up one or two un-wretched moments she can look back on and be glad she was alive to eperience.

[magical thyme]

44. and tell these people how "lucky" they are that their 26 year old son was forced to go through

his "medical" treatment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141034578#post25

You are condoning the government grabbing control of innocent people and removing all their rights "for their own good."

I cannot support that, no matter how well your medical treatment worked out for you.

BTW, you don't know that she'll go to college, that her college experience will be positive (mine wasn't), that she'll "fall in love" and be loved back, or that her life will in any way end up worth the suffering forced on her. Just because your life turned out worth living doesn't mean that for many, many other people it ends up mostly suffering to be endured.

[YarnAddict]

45. Suffering??

Chemotherapy is much more like inconvenience, especially now. Somewhere upthread someone mentioned their husband's treatment for Stage IV Hodgkins. Sounds like it wasn't nearly as bad as what I went through, and even that wasn't all that bad.

And yes, her life will probably always suck, so she should just die now and avoid all of that. In fact, maybe we all should.

BTW, how do you feel about the government mandating measles vaccine?

[magical thyme]

46. wow. so your chemo wasn't all that bad, therefore everybody's experience is the same?

right. maybe everybody should just hand their lives and decision-making over to you, because obviously your experience is the only valid one.

The government doesn't abduct your children and force-vaccinate them. They simply won't be able to get into school without it. You can always choose to home-school.

And btw, since you don't seem aware of it, cancer isn't contagious. Measles is. Minor detail, right?

[YarnAddict]

47. Wow, indeed

Some medical interventions should be mandatory and some shouldn't be, based on your own pet issue. I see.

As for chemotherapy, where there is life there is hope; where there is no life there is no hope.

[magical thyme]

50. I didn't say some should or shouldn't be mandatory. I did note that those

that are mandatory are so because they can spread to *other* people; unlike cancer, they are not limited to the sick individual. And that nobody is abducting children, tying them down and giving them measles vaccines. Just preventing the unvaccinated from attending public school where they could infect others.

And that's not "my pet issue." You presented measles as government mandated. That's my understanding of any vaccination mandate.

[geek tragedy]

49. the parents of this girl are lucky they are not in jail where they belong

for attempted homicide

[geek tragedy]

39. No, it is very simple. She ought to be grateful for the people who saved her from her gross

stupidity and the criminal neglect of her double-digit IQ fundyclown parents.

Without rational intervention from the government, she'd be a corpse.

[YarnAddict]

48. +1,000!! n/t

[HockeyMom]

52. She doesn't sound like she is kissing the ground those doctors walk on

Think in September when she finally becomes an adult her entire attitude is going to change? At the very least she is going to have MENTAL SCARS from this experience.

So you agree that even with adults forced medical care by the government should be the norm? We may be forced today by the ACA to have health insurance (tax as the SC wisely worded it), but there is nothing in that law which says we must USE medical care.

[geek tragedy]

53. she was not legally competent to make that determination, and

her parents were guilty of criminal neglect.

If adults want to commit slow-motion suicide by rejecting medical care, that is their right.

I do not feel sorry for her for having mental scars. Better than being dead, and the mental scars are quite frankly her parents' fault and her own for being so goddamn stupid.

[smirkymonkey]

67. This!

[NickB79]

63. What kind of risks do corpses run for secondary cancers and fertility issues?

I don't think it's as simple as some DUers are making it out to be. There is also the damage to her sense of self and the violation of her body and sense of control over her life, not unlike being kidnapped and repeatedly raped.

Her choices were basically to undergo chemo, or accept death. Your post in many ways makes it sound like death would somehow be preferable, and then you compared it to rape, which is in many ways horribly insulting to rape victims. Rape victims, with proper counseling, can go on to live long, healthy, happy lives in spite of what they endured. The same cannot be said of those with an almost always fatal form of cancer.

[magical thyme]

66. and you and others are writing as though the state forcibly medicating somebody against their will

is somehow about this single individual, and not about all of our rights.

Because, you know, the state is always right and we have no rights because the state knows best.

[F4lconF16]

51. These can be tough issues.

This one, however, is a bit more clear cut to me. The child is just that: a child; legally not an adult. The state has the responsibility to protect children from harm because of lack of medical care. In a case like this, where the cancer is readily treatable, it is even more imperative.

I agree that we should have full bodily autonomy as an adult. I support Death with Dignity laws, and to some extent, would actually support legal suicide for anyone who desires it. People should have complete control over their own bodies. When the girl is 18, she will have every right to refuse treatment, as she should. That said, she isn't an adult yet. Her medical decisions are in her parents hands, until such point where their refusal of treatment will harm the child, in which case her care becomes the state's responsibility. For those who disagree with this, when do you draw the line? At what age would you give a child medical autonomy? When can a child refuse treatment?

Second, this is not comparable to Death with Dignity cases. A child's medical care and legal protections are not the same as an adults. Whether or not the state should intervene in cases where the child has a terminal illness that is significantly less treatable is another question to discuss, but my feeling is that even then, the state has a responsibility to ensure that the child was at least given every chance at treatment first (and I do mean treatments with a reasonable chance of success).

Lastly, as bad as chemo is and as bad as the side effects/lasting ramifications may be, she is still alive, and as soon as she turns 18, she will have the choice to do what she likes with her body. Should she decide it wasn't worth it and would like to end her life then, she would have my support. If a child were to be injured a car crash, where the only option to save their life would be to go through a surgery that would leave them in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, would people still advocate letting the child decide they don't want to live?

Complicated stuff.

[wordpix]

55. I struggled w/acceptance of recommended chemo, and did a LOT of research

Most patients don't, because it's a time consuming process requiring reading technical medical jargon that you have to learn, just like learning a new language. That was part of the struggle. But once I mastered the language, I learned that my chemo for my exact cancer type and stage (4) was not well studied. I had to rely on just two studies of about 200 patients. The studies focused on patients who had surgery to remove tumors (with no chemo) vs. those who did surgery + chemo. Conclusion was that the chemo gave patients a slight edge on survival, about a year more. I still had to struggle with the decision b/c it's well known that chemo causes side effects, some of which may be permanent or can cause complications like being susceptible to serious infections. In addition to the research studies, I also spoke with friends and acquaintances who had lived through chemo and are alive and well today, to a man who lost his wife who died of complications from chemo, and to a woman who refused chemo, went on an organic diet and is alive and healthy. In the end I did the chemo and got through all 12 rounds with no major problems. I likewise eat 100% organic, exercise daily, take supplements and have a strict health regimen I developed myself. I am healthy with no cancer 6 mos. after chemo ended and 14 mos. after surgery.

I doubt a 17 y.o. would do the type and extent of the research I did. She is too young to make such a decision on her own, IMO.

[F4lconF16]

56. The other problem is that if you allow a 17 year old to take medical control, when is the cut off?

Can a 16 year old do so? Maybe 15? Hell, I've known 13 year olds that were smarter and more informed than a number of 17 year olds I've met, and who I'd trust with their own medical decisions far more than, for instance, this 17 year old. But they aren't the majority, for sure.

Glad to hear that you are doing well, chemo is rough and it's good you are healthy

[deurbano]

61. Congrats! Best wishes for continued health... and a great life!

[Doctor_J]

64. yipes. The state compelling someone to take medicine. This is not a good thing.

A lot like Terry Schiavo.

[YarnAddict]

73. Niiiiiiice . . .

Comparing a very young woman who has a curable disease and (most likely) a decades-long future ahead of her with a brain dead woman.

Not even close to being a lot like Terry Schiavo.

[Sunlei]

72. teens are impulsive people. I'm happy she survived & hope Jackie is happier today too.