The Ethical Dilemmas In Cassandra's Case

Laws are benefitial. They allow societies to function within an organized set of rules. However, the law cannot be applied to all situations. Some circumstances are special--for example, the case of Cassandra Callender. In such a case, the ethical dilemmas that arise, blur what is just, so the people decide what is ethical. In 2016, Cassandra was diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL). If treated with chemotherapy, HL has a 85% cure rate (Nalpathanchil 1). However, in modern society, some people prefer to use more natural methods to treat sickness and disease. Cassandra is one of these people. She wanted to explore alternative therapy to treat her disease. The reason why was because of “the long term effects of chemotherapy” (Gorski 8), her
At the time of her diagnoses, Cassandra was seventeen. Considering that her age and that she refused chemotherapy, the DCF was assigned to decide whether or not Cassandra was mature enough to make this decision. After evaluating her, the DCF found her unfit to make her own decisions, and she was forced to have chemotherapy.
Some of the ethical dilemmas that encompass this case are the actions of the DCF. Almost a legal adult, Cassandra is capable of making her own decisions, but to what extent? The DCF has a responsibility to protect Cassandra, even from herself. The fact that Cassandra is only seventeen, does not legally make her an adult, therefore, the DCF has a responsibility to protect her.
Not only that, the fact that HL has an 85% cure rate when treated with chemotherapy, makes the treatment desirable. It was also highly recommended by her doctors. However, Cassandra refusing the treatment brings her safety into question. Is it safe for her to refuse the treatment? According to science, statistics, and her doctors;
By opting for alternative treatments, she is putting herself at a greater risk for death, so the DCF had to protect her from herself.
Even though Cassandra was almost a legal adult, she was not yet mature enough to make decisions about her health. So the DCF’s biggest decision about whether to force Cassandra into chemotherapy or not, was the value of her life. By forcing her into chemo, they ensured that Cassandra’s life had value. If they allowed her to make the decision to not go through with the chemotherapy, they were weighing the value of Cassandra’s life against her decisions.
By comparing Cassandra’s behavior to her maturity, the DCF could decide if the value of her decisions matches the value of her life. However, Cassandra showed insufficient maturity when making decisions about her behavior. Not only did she run away for a week, she “miss[ed] multiple doctor’s appointments” that were mandated by the state (Gorski 6). Therefore, the DCF had no reason to believe that Cassandra was capable of weighing her life against her