A 17-year-old in Connecticut who refused to continue receiving chemotherapy to treat her Hodgkin's lymphoma, poses a genuine ethical dilemma.  The dilemma stems from a conflict between two leading ethical principles.  One principle, respect for autonomy, calls for respecting individuals' right to self-determination.  In the medical context, that means allowing people to refuse medical treatment, even lifesaving therapy.  The other ethical principle, beneficence, directs physicians and hospitals to maximize benefits and minimize harms in caring for patients.
The problem in Cassandra's case is that she is still legally a minor, which means that a parent or guardian has the legal authority to make health care decisions on her behalf.  But unlike problematic cases in which parents and their offspring disagree about medical treatment, her mother upheld her daughter's refusal of treatment.
Courts have the authority to overrule parents when their medical decisions threaten the life or health of their offspring.  In such cases, temporary custody is removed from the parents and a specific guardian (termed a "guardian ad litem") is appointed to make medical decisions for the minor.
On Jan. 8, 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision and ruled that Cassandra must continue to undergo chemotherapy against her will.  Separate lawyers for the mother and daughter sought to have the teen considered a "mature minor," which would grant her the right to refuse lifesaving treatment, but the court declined to rule on that aspect, siding with the medical judgment that there is an 85 percent chance of surviving Hodgkin's lymphoma by treating with chemotherapy.
There is no way of knowing what Cassandra will say if she is eventually cured of her cancer.  She might be grateful that her life was saved, and thank the doctors and the hospital for involving the courts to force the chemotherapy.  Or she might remain resentful, claiming that her autonomous right to refuse medical treatment was violated.  But whatever she might say, her judgment in the matter does not resolve the ethical dilemma.  She is still legally a minor, but that does not ethically justify the actions of the doctor, the hospital, the child welfare agency and the Connecticut courts.
Although reasonable people may disagree on whether a 17-year-old should be forced to undergo medical treatment against her will, we should not condone the brutality involved in placing this young patient in a foster home and reportedly sedating her and strapping her down in a hospital bed. The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote that "whoever wills the end, wills the means."  However, even those who initially support a plan to force treatment on a young patient are morally bound to question the means required to do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-macklin/the-ethical-dilemma-of-fo_b_6457592.html