I think the Law Tribune Editorial Board got it exactly wrong when it took Cassandra C’s lawyers Michael S. Taylor and James P. Sexton to task for taking to the Supreme Court the teenager’s case in which she sought to be treated as if she were an adult and, thus, had the right to decline chemotherapy. I would give them an award instead of criticism.
Granted, this young woman made a stupid decision, and her mother was an idiot for supporting her, but no one can argue that the case did not raise interesting and challenging issues. If Cassandra, who is 17, had been a few months older when she got the news that she was going to have to submit to a very demanding medical regime, she would have been entirely within her rights to decline treatment, despite the probability that her decision would kill her. Arguing that she had no right to make this decision because she was a few months short of majority was no more of a stretch than arguing the alternative. When both sides have good, sincere and compelling arguments, the place to decide them is in courts. Advancing clients’ legitimate, though perhaps ill-considered, objectives is exactly what lawyers should do.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
