The Courts control your Private Life

From Fox News. (Yes, George Orwell was Right.)

Connecticut teen with cancer forced by state to undergo chemo treatments


Published January 05, 2015

A 17-year-old cancer patient and her mother are locked in an unprecedented legal battle with the Connecticut state government over the teen’s right to refuse chemotherapy treatment, Fox CT reported.

The girl, identified only as “Cassandra C.” in court documents, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in September. At the time, doctors at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) recommended she receive chemotherapy. After she refused treatment— with her mother’s support— Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) stepped in.

According to the Hartford Courant, Cassandra believes chemotherapy can cause her as much or more damage as the cancer at this point. Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer of the lymphatic system. As it progresses, it compromises the body’s ability to fight infection.

“She knows the long-term effects of having chemo, what it does to your organs, what it does to your body. She may not be able to have children after this because it affects everything in your body. It not only kills cancer, it kills everything in your body,” Cassandra’s mother, Jackie Fortin, said in a video published on the Hartford Courant’s website.

Cassandra was taken into temporary custody by DCF in November, and her mother was ordered to cooperate with medical care administered under the agency’s supervision, after the hospital reported her to the agency.

Cassandra underwent two chemotherapy treatments before running away from home. When she returned, she refused treatment.

The teen’s doctors testified at a trial court hearing, after which it was decided that she was to be removed from her home and remain in DCF custody— and that DCF was authorized to make medical decisions on her behalf.

Cassandra and her mother appealed the ruling and their case will be heard Thursday at the Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford. The family claims that, by allowing DCF to use their judgment over that of Cassandra’s family, without the finding of incompetence on their behalf, the forced treatment violates the family’s constitutional rights. Additionally, they claim that the state should recognize the “mature minor doctrine” that requires that a court first determine if a minor is not adequately mature enough to be allowed to make medical decisions on her own.

“It’s a question of fundamental constitutional rights– the right to have a say over what happens to your body– and the right to say to the government ‘you can’t control what happens to my body,’” Cassandra’s mother’s attorney, Michael S. Taylor, told Fox CT. A public defender represents Cassandra.

According to Cassandra and her mother, Connecticut’s common law and public policy dictate that DCF cannot force the teen to receive medical treatment over her and her mother’s knowing and informed objection.

“The Supreme Court of the state has never ruled on this issue, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on this issue. So it’s very significant not just for our client, and for the minor child, but for the law in general,” Taylor told the news channel.

Fortin told the Hartford Courant that even prior to her diagnosis, Cassandra would have opted not to undergo chemotherapy.

“This is her decision, and she’s very intelligent enough to make this decision on her own,” Fortin said. “She does not want poisons in her body, and she does not want to be forced through the state or the government to force her to do such a thing. And right now, at this moment, she is being forced chemo upon her against her wish.”

Side effects of chemotherapy can include nausea, hair loss, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea, according to the National Cancer Institute.

“Connecticut Children’s is working closely with the State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families in this matter,” Bob Fraleigh, spokesman for the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, said in a statement to “We are grateful that the state Supreme Court has agreed to take on this very important case and we look forward to their guidance.”

U P D A T E — January 8, 2015

Connecticut Supreme Court upholds ruling that teen must undergo chemo


Published January 08, 2015

DEVELOPING STORY: The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a prior ruling Thursday that a 17-year-old cancer patient cannot refuse chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The teen, who is identified in court documents as “Cassandra C.,” but was identified by police as Cassandra Callender in a November missing persons report, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in September. At the time, doctors at the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) recommended she receive chemotherapy.


~ ~ oOo ~ ~


In other words, our bodies don’t belong to us, nor do we have any right to determine our health care, or our choice of treatments or non-treatments. The Courts are the final arbiters, and the Department of Children and Families has the right to step in personal situations as complainants, and the rights of citizens be damned.

Be Aware, and Beware, for Big Brother knows more what you need or want, and is going to make damn sure you receive what he deems you need, like it or not~!

It seems to me, that in the eyes of the medical profession and in the eyes of the DCF, as well as the legal/judicial branches of the state government of Connecticut, we are little more than zombified automatons.  And are no more intelligent, IF as intelligent, as cretinized idiots. That’s how I am seeing this scenario.

I am beyond enraged. 

~ ~ Grouchy ~ ~

Tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to The Courts control your Private Life

  1. Just Gene says:

    Didn’t we go through this about a year ago? Maybe even in Connecticut? The medical bastards took a kid away from her parents.damn near killed her, and then gave her back to her parents to undo the damage. Maybe they will reopen
    Tuskegee! HATE THEM

    • Grouchy says:

      Hello, Gene,,,
      And yes, we went through a similar situation about a year ago, but I thought it was in Massachusetts. I could be in error.
      Ayn Rand and her principle of self-determination is no more needed than right now. I am SOOO fed up with our leadership, I could chew nails~! And you know the rest of that saying,,, ,,, ,,,

      • Kathy says:

        I believe it was Mrs. AL that did a post on that, but I could be wrong. The girl was moved from a NY hospital to Boston General (?) and they took forever to get that child back to her parents before she damn near died.

  2. Kathy says:

    As outrageous as this is, it’s not surprising coming from Connecticut, where the gun Nazis rule – it stands to reason they’d have Nazis in the hospitals too. There’s probably a commie regulation in place that demands they report such information to the DCF.

    Cassandra and her mom would have been better off to play the system. Tell them yes on the chemo, make the appointment, then call and reschedule. Do that enough times and she gets lost in the shuffle.

    Until such time we clean out the commies in the government, trying to do things the legal way only wastes time and money.

    • Grouchy says:

      Kathy, those are all good points, and valid. HOWEVER, we tried this last November to get rid of the commies in our House and Senate – Guess WHAT~! Boner is STILL in the leadership, and making like a petulant bully whiny snot-nosed brat.

      THAT SAID, I like your idea of “getting lost in the shuffle”,,, but I’m afraid in this Big Brother society, they’d send a cop car with a warrant, and then she’d still be in the same boat she’s in now.

      • Kathy says:

        Grouchy, I mean the SHTF kind of cleaning where we go back to the Constitution and start over. Elections make no difference anymore – it’s going to take wiping the slate clean to make a difference.

  3. Clyde says:

    Sounds to me as if the state medical system is in bed with the socialistic government and courts of Connecticut. If this young lady would rathger take her chances with the disease rather than the cure, she SHOULD be able to go for it. But, as is the case with liberals, they just CANNOT keep their nose out of where it don’t belong.Too bad this family couldn’t get the RIGHT lawyer to take the case.

    • Grouchy says:

      I have an idea this is going to the U.S. Supremes, Clyde. I would love to read a transcript of the CT Supreme Court ruling. Bet it’s one percent legalese, and 99 percent Cow-pies.

  4. mikentosh says:

    Too Late for the ballot-box, too soon for the gun?

    • Grouchy says:

      Greetings, Mikentosh
      I think you have the right of it, Friend. But just in case, keep your powder dry, and the slide well oiled!~!

  5. Terry says:

    This is , as you pointed out GF, a scary situation. Right up there with the Kervorkian’s (sp) who couldn’t be trusted by the govt. to know when it was time to go.
    And they will no doubt force the girl to eat a moochie approved hospital meal while she is there.
    If she physically resisted the treatment, would they restrain her and force it on her ?

    • Grouchy says:

      Greets, Terry.
      All one has to do is look to Gitmo,,, and that’s your answer, I’m afraid.
      This obomination we have in the White House has his influential tendrils into everything.
      I cannot understand how a bureaucracy can determine a persons tolerance level for pain and suffering. And they damned and persecuted Dr. Jack Kevorkian for his attempts to ameliorate and ease a person’s “end-of-life” suffering. But everyone seemed to want to get their fingers and thoughts and laws into what should be a personal, intimate decision.
      How about those who are asked about “unplugging” a terminally ill patient, with no chance of recovery or quality of life for God knows how long???
      The editorial comments in this reply are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my fellow contributors. ~ ~ G F ~ ~

  6. BrianR says:

    What does this mean regarding Christian Scientists? They don’t believe in standard medical treatments or procedures.

    This case presents many issues, and I don’t see how the state can prevail, especially if it has to go to federal appellate court.

    • Grouchy says:

      IMO, the lowest court should have realized the infringment on the individua’s rights in the first place, and thrown the case out of court, without the ability to refile on behalf of the plaintiffs.
      I find the whole situation sickening beyond belief.
      Thank You, Brian. I never even considered the Christian Scientists or other sects who have the same religious conflicts. You’re right — There are MANY issues involved. Glad you brought that up.

  7. CW says:

    I guess I’m going to be the contrary Mary here.

    Even though I totally understand the repulsion at the notion of the state forcing someone to undergo medical treatment, you can’t have this debate on a case by case basis. Either the state can intervene in situations where a child’s health is at risk or it can’t. What if this had been a 6-year old child or an 11-year old child refusing treatment for a cancer that’s highly curable? Is a child capable of making a life or death decision when he is still a child? In most states a 17-year old is still a child, because we had to pick an age at which to draw the line and declare a person an adult and typically that’s 18. I’ve been 17 and I’ve raised teenagers and I can tell you that most people at that age still do not possess the maturity to evaluate these decisions the way an adult would. I heard on the news today that her cancer has an 85% recovery rate if treated. What parent in her right mind would discourage her child from receiving treatment with that kind of success rate? That’s not a parent who is looking out for the best interests of her child. There’s a larger issue at stake here and if this child can make her own healthcare decisions then why not let all children do so?

    • Grouchy says:

      With Respect, CW, I must disagree. The “Mature Minor Doctrine” is intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis. It is not a “one size fits all” legal paradigm. Legally, it is recognized that there are differences in maturity among individuals of any given age, and as in this case, age 17. I’ve personally seen individuals that age who were more mature than their parents. I’ve also dealt with individuals still in their teens with the maturity level of pre-teens, at best.
      Following is a very brief description of this concept. And while one may not fully agree with the source, the concept remains valid.
      Begin Quote:

      In the United States, a typical statute lists: “Who may consent [or withhold consent for] surgical or medical treatment or procedures.”

      “…Any unemancipated minor of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the consequences of the proposed surgical or medical treatment or procedures, for himself.”[5][6]


      One early U.S. case of significance, Smith v. Seibly, 72 Wn.2d 16, 431 P.2d 719 (1967), before the Washington Supreme Court, establishes precedent on the mature minor doctrine. The plaintiff, Albert G. Smith, an 18-year-old married father, was suffering from myasthenia gravis, a progressive disease. Because of this, Smith expressed concern that his wife might become burdened in caring for him, for their existing child — and possibly for additional children. On March 9, 1961, while still age 18, Smith requested a vasectomy. His doctor required written consent, which Smith provided, and the surgery was performed. Later, after reaching Washington’s statutory age of majority, then 21, the doctor was sued by Smith, who now claimed that he had been a minor and thus unable to grant surgical or medical consent. The Court rejected Smith’s argument, noting in its ruling, “Thus, age, intelligence, maturity, training, experience, economic independence or lack thereof, general conduct as an adult and freedom from the control of parents are all factors to be considered in such a case [involving consent to surgery].” The court further quoted another recently-decided case, Grannum v. Berard, 70 Wn.2d 304, 307, 422 P.2d 812 (1967): “The mental capacity necessary to consent to a surgical operation is a question of fact to be determined from the circumstances of each individual case.” The Court explicitly stated that a minor may grant surgical consent even without formal emancipation.

      Especially since the 1970s, older pediatric patients sought to make autonomous decisions regarding their own treatment, and sometimes sued successfully to do so.[8] The decades of accumulated evidence tended to demonstrate that children are capable of participating in medical decisionmaking in a meaningful way;[9][10] and legal and medical communities have demonstrated an increasing willingness to formally affirm decisions made by young people even regarding life and death.[11]

      In 1990, the United States Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act; even though key provisions apply only to patients over age 18,[12] the legislation advanced patient involvement in decisionmaking. The West Virginia Supreme Court, in Belcher v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 422 S.E.2d 827, 188 W.Va. 105 (1992), defined a “mature minor” exception to parental consent, according consideration to seven factors to be weighed regarding such a minor: age, ability, experience, education, exhibited judgment, conduct, and appreciation of relevant risks and consequences.[13]

      * * * * *
      There is a lot more information in this article, I do recognize there are valid arguments both pro and con.
      What DOES gripe my soul in this case is the evident ignoring of the rights and privileges of a person, though young, but fully aware of the consequences of her actions and decisions, AND supported by the responsible adult parent.

      I DO recognize the validity of your statements. However, a child under the age of 13, for example, in no way nor manner has the requisite life experience to make such decisions, NOR the educational background, in any case, to make such decisions. AND any parent permitting such decisions to be made by such youths would be less than mature themselves. A case in point, is the recent suicide of a child, who felt like a girl trapped in a boys body.

      SO, “Contrary Mary”, I respect your views, though in areas I do disagree with your expanded premise.

      • CW says:

        You put up a very formidable argument, my friend, and I am better educated because of it. Even so, your comments suggest that you agree the court has the right to intercede on a case by case basis when it comes to the health of minors. The Fox News report on this states: “The state argued that the teen lacked competency extended to maturity and that they did not believe she understood the severity of her prognosis.” That suggests that they did evaluate this particular individual and they made a judgment on that basis, so I don’t know if it’s fair to say that her rights were ignored.

        • Grouchy says:

          You have information (Fox News) that I didn’t have. What I had, you have on this page. So I was not aware that the court did make that determination, AND did rule on her apparent competency. That said, I’m still on the side of the teen and her mother, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON that I feel the state has far overstepped its bounds, AND so has the hospital and medical personnel.
          I still feel, that we’re living in the world of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.

        • Anne says:

          I’m leaning to this side as well. I heard this morning that the mom kept preventing the actual cancer diagnosis, including interrupting a biopsy before they could show officially that it was cancer. Mom has also kept her home schooled (I believe it was after a divorce, but could be mistaken there), which I am a big proponent of, but in this case it sounds as if mom herself may not be mature enough to make decisions and is in total denial, not that they are making an educated decision.

          It is a tricky topic, though. On one hand, I agree that we should get to choose what we want, but then, one could use that argument to support abortion, with that resulting in the same thing as this case. On the other hand, you could end up with total government intrusion. Obviously we expect the government to do something in particular cases, say when someone is starving their child, but the question is where the line is. Definitely not an easy topic.

          • Grouchy says:

            Good Morning, Anne,
            And I owe a deep debt of appreciation to both you and CW for bringing much needed information to this particular case.
            The whole case depends on intelligent, wise application of wisdom to the subject of the Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, its diagnosis and course of treatment.
            That said, with the young lady being home-schooled and evidently NOT getting the full needed informative input to make a wise and informed decision, it does appear that we have a lot of extraneous tendrils of influence on this case.
            You are correct, in that the possibility of abuse is very strong in many cases demanding informed consent. And maturity is a prime requisite in all cases and situations like this. Evidently, there are valid questions of the level of maturity shown by the daughter and the mother.

            Thank you, for bringing this information to the fore. In ANY case, it does not really sanction governmental interference, in the vast majority of cases. And we all have read of Child Welfare Agency abuses nationwide, not just in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

            Definitely not an easy topic, as you said.

            And again, thank you for the added information. There was MUCH, apparently, that I was not aware of when I posted this article.

  8. vonMesser says:

    Wonder what goes when she’s 18?

    • Grouchy says:

      You bring up an interesting point, VM, and one that in these circumstances could be problematic. The age of majority in CT is 18. HOWEVER, that said, and the actions already taken by the state and medical profession in CT, There IS the possibility of her being deemed mentally unfit to manage her own affairs, and be placed as a ward of the court.
      The information on this site is rather helpful.

      As I told CW, I feel we’re living in a world of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. And right now, Big Brother is holding all Aces.

      The precedents set here are terrifying. And while I am not a fatalist, I AM terrified at the direction I see these kind of situations going. And Obomacare is not helpful, in the least, to my peace of mind!

  9. 219rad says:

    The gov’t has been doing similar things for many years now. If a girl child 13, 14, 15 etc goes to a school counselor and tells them she’s had unprotected sex, they set her up to get the morning after pill. It doesn’t require them to even notify the parents. If the same girl child tells them she may be pregnant, they arrange for testing and if positive they arrange for an abortion without parent knowledge or consent. Why? Because that girl child no matter what age has a constitutional right to determine what goes on with her body regardless of family religious principles, parent responsibilities etc. Hawaii happens to be one of those states. (go figure)

    Now in this case, if you don’t agree with the state you are just out of luck because they KNOW what is best for you. So you see, you have do what you feel is right as long as the gov’t agrees.

    • Grouchy says:

      Good Morning, RAD
      George Orwell’s “1984” is here in full bloom. But here in your scenario, I have to ask, “Where were the parents, when the need for sexual information was apparent?” Where were the religious counselors teaching abstinence?
      The American society has relinquished a lot of responsibility for training in areas that are the proper domain of the home.
      THAT SAID~!
      The government has taken liberties that demean and obstruct the proper function of the home. Religion and moral / ethical instruction has been shunted aside. Personal responsibility has been countered as of no importance or consequence. And our culture and society as a whole will pay a horrific penalty because of it.
      Thank you for a very thought provoking comment~!

      • vonMesser says:

        I have to ask, “Where were the religious counselors teaching abstinence?
        As far as I know, abstinence has always been taught in the Catholic schools. (2 Catholic grade schools and 1 high school where I live – and was taught when I was in both grade and high school) It is currently taught in the local Lutheran school also,

        so, at least in some locales the religious counselors have been doing their jobs.

  10. Grouchy says:

    That’s true, VM, and in many other religious institutions, as well. Yet, it is apparently not strongly reinforced in the home, and in society in general. I’m beginning to think that to many, “Freedom” is equal to “Debauchery”.
    And that isn’t going to cut it.

  11. Blessed B says:


    It would seem that in the legal proceedings it is assumed that chemotherapy is the only viable option for Cassandra, and that without it she will die. Most mainstream media reports are stating this as fact.

    It is not fact.

    Last year Health Impact News reported on a case in Ohio where medical authorities wanted to take custody of an Amish girl who was refusing chemotherapy for cancer treatment. The parents took her outside the U.S. to prevent losing custody of their young daughter, and to receive alternative cancer therapy. The mainstream media was in an uproar and freely reported what doctors were claiming, that the girl would almost immediately die without treatment. And yet instead, the girl became cancer-free through alternative treatments, and is still doing well today. (See: Ohio Amish Girl Who Refused Forced Chemo Now Reported Cancer-free.)

    There are thousands of stories of people beating cancer without chemotherapy. In 1994 Billy Best, for example, became a media sensation when, as a teenager, he ran away to avoid chemotherapy and eventually healed himself of his cancer through alternative methods. He was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma, the same diagnosis Cassandra has been given. He refused chemotherapy and he is still alive and doing well today, teaching people about alternative cancer treatments.

    The chemical-based cancer treatment business is a lucrative industry in the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars each year, with a very poor success rate. To learn more, see: The Cancer Industry is Too Prosperous to Allow a Cure.


    From what I read….the mother and daughter were not even given time to go seek a second opinion or other options of treatments. The daughter was then forced to do the chemo.
    Read the Full Story at

    • Grouchy says:

      The medical profession through the AMA, in alliance with the dictatorial executive branch at any level, have pretty well sewn up the medical and healing arts in the civilized world today.
      I’d say that’s a pretty severe indictment of the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm”.
      Thank You, Blessed B.