What was the real legal dispute in In re: Cassandra C.? Yes, the specific question was whether a 17-year-old teenager could be forced against her will to undergo life-saving chemotherapy. But, what was the real issue?
Only minutes after hearing oral arguments in the appeal of In re: Cassandra C. (see my earlier posts), the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled from the bench, unanimously, that the 17-year-old teen who wanted the legal right to refuse life-saving chemotherapy was not a “mature minor” and, therefore, could not refuse such treatment.
It is always an honor and a pleasure to join John Dankosky, Colin McEnroe and their guests on “The Wheelhouse,” WNPR’s wonderful weekly news roundtable. Today we discussed: hot issues facing the Connecticut legislature during its 2015 legislation session, which begins today; a fascinating case heading to the state Supreme Court concerning a 17-year-old girl who wants to refuse life saving medical treatment for her very-treatable case of Hodgkin’s lymphoma; and the growing debate over the insensitivity of a local craft brewery in using the name and image of Mahatma Gandhi to promote a pale ale. (I join the discussion about 13:30 into the segment.)
Thanks for having me on the show guys! (And thanks to Chion Wolf for the great pic she took at the studio.)
Two quick updates to the preceding post concerning the appeal in In re: Cassandra C. First, Cassandra’s attorneys filed their reply brief today. The filing of that brief, which responds to the legal arguments the Department of Children and Families made in its brief, concludes the written briefs portion of the appeal. Second, the oral argument in the Supreme Court at 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 8 will be televised (I assume by CT-N).
I plan to attend the oral argument on Thursday and hope to have a post-argument post later that day. Stay tuned.