OPINION
U.S. Looks to Lift Embargo Opening trade with Cuba could benefit the economies of both countries and help democratize Cuba. BY AUBREY MAKAR REPORTER
After 50 years since the commencement of the Cuba embargo, the United States has still not achieved the results they hoped for. There seems to be little point in continuing this if it harms the economy of the United States and Cuba. Just because Cuba refuses to act in the exact way the United States wants them to, does this mean that we should continue to enforce the embargo until we get our way? The embargo has been harming the United States’ economy since 1960. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the embargo and says that it usually costs the United States approximately $1.2 billion a year from lost sales. And a March 2010 study by Texas A&M University calculated that removing the embargo on agricultural exports could create as many as 6,000 jobs in the United States. While the embargo was issued to dismantle and frazzle Cuba enough to create a representative democracy, this change has not occurred. This goal
of the embargo was focused on helping the Cuban people escape their communist government, but it has failed to make any change in Cuba. Cubans are not allowed to attain technology, medicine, affordable food, or other goods from the United States. The embargo was implemented in order to command the government of Cuba to conform to the U.S. state of mind but now is only harming the citizens. With this embargo enforced, not only is the United States preventing the use of modern technology for Cubans, but it is also taking away medical advances that could help Cubans. The embargo was originally enforced after the Cold War when the United States wanted to implement a democracy in communist Cuba. From 1960 to present times the embargo seems like an ancient relic of the Cold War. After all, we’re not still sewing our own clothes and most women have substantial jobs in society. If this artifact of the past is continued, the message sent out to the world is that the United States continues to be too stubborn to accept that Cuba can do what they want with their country. Sure, communism is not the ideal image of a functioning government for most Americans, but there is a possibility that if the embargo was lifted, Cuba would be more willing to try to comply with some of the United States’ ideals.
With President Barack Obama breaking down the walls of the embargo, Americans and Cubans alike might have to accept the new ideas that are executed in order to better the lives of those affected by it. But, if the Cuban Embargo is not completing the goals that were set in its birth, what is the point of carrying on with it? In order to make a change in the economy of the United States and Cuba, the embargo should be lifted to benefit all.
In May 2002, Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in a live speech broadcast on Cuban television, called on the United States to end the then 43-yearold economic embargo. (Photo by MCT Campus)
State Steps in to Require Treatment State government forces minor to pursue chemotherapy due to lack of maturity to make her own decision. BY ELLIE STINGLEY CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
When 17-year-old Connecticut teen, referred to as Cassandra C in court records, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, she decided to refuse treatment. Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a cancer with an 85 percent survival rate with proper treatment, but after being diagnosed Cassandra decided to refuse the chemotherapy needed to save her life, according to NBCnews.com. Without the treatment, doctors say Cassandra will die within two years. Because Cassandra is under the legal age to make her own medical decisions, the Connecticut state government stepped in. Currently, she is undergoing chemotherapy in Connecticut Children’s Medical Center against her will. This has stirred controversy, posing the question of the government’s authority to force Cassandra to receive medical treatment without her consent. The answer is yes, they did have the authority and the obligation to take the action they did. If Cassandra were 18, the decision would not be questioned legally. However, Cassandra is a minor who has failed to show the required level of maturity to make such
a decision. According to bostonglobe.com, she ran away from home after two days of treatment. Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said that Cassandra has also made it apparent to doctors that her decision to refuse treatment was deeply influenced by her fear of going against her mother’s wishes, to not receive treatment, according to nbcnews.com. Red flag number one. Her mother, Jackie Forton, reportedly neglected to bring her daughter to at least four doctor appointments this past fall, according to bostonglobe.com. Red flag number two. This suggests a mother in denial of her daughter’s illness, not of one doing the best for her child. In this case, one in which the guardian of a minor is failing to sufficiently care for her child, the government needs to step in. The missed doctor appointments suggest that Forton was influencing Cassandra’s decision in a negative way, one that could alter her life forever. This is not to propose that Forton does not want the best for her daughter; it just appears that she does not know what that is. Therefore, the government needed to take control of the situation to ensure the best future for Cassandra. Although minors are typically not allowed to make their own medical decisions, the Mature Minor Doctrine allows mature and competent minors to make their own decisions, according to uslegal.com. To determine maturity, the court evaluates age, circumstances, intelligence and understanding of the situation. This doctrine
is effective in several states, however, not in Connecticut. Even if the doctrine were effective in Connecticut, Cassandra has not displayed sufficient maturity to make this decision. Her apparent fear of going against what her mother thinks is right shows that this decision could have very possibly not been made just by Cassandra. It appears as though her mother is influencing the decision very heavily. This was further suggested when Forton did not bring Cassandra to her doctor appointments. Because of the extreme circumstances and the actions of both Forton and her daughter, the Connecticut state government had the obligation to take action on behalf of Cassandra’s best interest and to save her life. Medical decisions should be respected as long as the person making them possesses the understanding and maturity to do so. Cassandra does not fit this description. It can be believed for multiple reasons that her mother had a bigger effect on the choice than Cassandra did herself. When a life or death situation occurs such as this, when both the guardian and patient fail to exhibit the necessary abilities to make such a lifealtering decision, it is indeed the government’s job to ensure the safety and welfare of the patient. A significant duty of the government is to protect the people and, in this case, that is was they are doing. They are trying to save Cassandra’s life. LE JOURNAL FEBRUARY
7
