In September 2014, Cassandra Callender, then referred to as “Cassandra C” because she was 17 and still a minor, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Medical experts have testified that Cassandra has an 85% chance of survival if treated with chemotherapy. Without it, doctors say, she likely will die within two years.
When Cassandra refused treatment, the doctors involved turned to her mother, who also refused treatment for her daughter. Both cited fears that the chemotherapy was “poison.”
In November 2014, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) petitioned the court for temporary custody and ordered Callender’s mother to cooperate with her daughter’s medical care. The court ruled in DCF’s favor, and Cassandra underwent two doses of chemotherapy.
Then Cassandra ran away from home on November 18 and was missing for a week. She ultimately returned but then completely refused any further chemotherapy. There was another hearing on December 9, and the trial court ordered that Cassandra be removed from her home and remain in DCF’s care and custody. The court also authorized DCF to make all medical decisions on Cassandra’s behalf. So Cassandra and her mother appealed, and in early January 2015 that appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the state of Connecticut.
They upheld the decision, and Cassandra was forced to finish her life-saving treatment.
The court held that because she was a minor, she was too young to make her own decision in this case, and that her mother’s decision amounted to her endangering a child. But in Connecticut, and many other states, 17 is old enough for a person to get contraception, undergo an abortion, seek psychiatric care or donate blood, all without parental consent.
For further details, see:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-sad-but-unexpectedly-hopeful-cancer-saga-of-cassandra-callender/Links to an external site.
After reading the case study, answer the following questions:
1) What is your judgment about the decision to take Cassandra from her family and force her to undergo chemotherapy? Was it legal? Was it moral? State why you think so.
2) The immediate results of the decision to coerce her to undergo chemotherapy is that it worked: the cancer was forced into remission, at least temporarily. Do you think the consequences determine whether or not this decision is right or wrong?
3) Do you think the decision to force her to undergo chemotherapy violated her rights? Why or why not? What are your sources of authority? Do you have high or low confidence in this knowledge?
4) Is your thinking on this matter consequentialist or nonconsequentialist? State why you think so, or why not. What are your sources of authority?
5) AFTER you have made your comment, read through the comments of your classmates, and respond to at least TWO of their comments on the same subject.
You need to incorporate the lessons from Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn into your contribution (if you offer only your moral thinking, but not how it is reflecting in the terms or concepts of the material, you will be marked down).
Textbook: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/ethics3/
