By Rachel Bahor
Contributing Writer
Connecticut’s Supreme Court has recently ruled necessary chemotherapy treatments for 17 year old Cassandra Fortin, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, despite her desire to explore alternative treatments. After being removed from her home by child welfare authorities, the teen has since been forced into treatments she states are unnecessary, voicing in an interview with ABC news that she does not want “such toxic, harmful drugs” in her body.
While it is understandable that many do not agree with her decision, Fortin should have every right to decide what treatment she endures. Just because her decision does not reflect that of the majority’s, does not make it invalid simply because of her age. With her mother’s full support, this family should have the privacy to make their own decisions on what treatments they deem best. Individuals over the age of 18 have the right to deny treatment no matter the severity of their illnesses or how lifesaving the treatment may be. In this case, Fortin has voiced her understanding of this by stating that life is about “the quantity, not the quality”. Fortin’s mother has also spoken up in the matter during an NPR interview. “This is not about death,” she says. “This is about ‘This is my body, my choice, let me decide’.”
In 1987, a similar case arose involving Ernestine Gregory, a 17 year old Jehovah’s Witness who denied blood transfusion after a Leukemia diagnosis. Gregory’s mother, similarly to Fortin’s, was found to have medically neglected her daughter. However, after going to trial, the state of Illinois ruled that Ernestine was a mature minor, and had the right to refuse the blood transfusions. While the state’s interest is in ensuring health and medical aid to its residents, there is a fine line separating its interests and its resident’s rights.
In Fortin’s case the courts have turned to review the “mature minor” doctrine; a common law principle that allows the court system to look at the minor and decide whether he or she is mature enough to make her own medical decisions. Typically invoked by minors inquiring about abortions without parental consent, the doctrine is now being applied to Cassandra’s case while her family continues to wait for the outcome.
While I find it appropriate to ensure a minor’s maturity before making such life-changing decisions, the principle of that process is stepping into murky territory. Each individual’s idea of a “mature” decision differs from another’s, and who’s to say which opinion is right or wrong? I find the application of the “mature minor” doctrine in this case to be unnecessary because the minor has full support from her family. If she were looking to be medically emancipated because her views opposed those of her family, the doctrine may be more helpful. Should the courts decide that Fortin is not mature enough to refuse chemotherapy treatments, she will remain in child welfare’s custody and continue to undergo treatment.
