Court forces 17 year old to take Chemo treatments against her will

I need to make a comment here. When patients are diagnosed with cancer that must undergo chemo treatment, it is extremely important for physicians to inform the patient and the family

1) what's the survival rate of the cancer
2) if no treatment, expected life expectancy
2') if no treatment, QoL effects after x and y years
3) if treatment, what's the success rate
4) if treatment, projected life expectancy (preferably at some confidence level)
5) if treatment, relapse period
6) if treatment, side effects and duration of side effects i.e. QoL

For many, many cancers, especially late stage ones where treatment success rate is low and expected life duration left is <6 months, doctors must weigh the patient's QoL heavily, and advise the patient that no treatment is as equally viable as having the treatment. Often, doctors want to cure a disease, but they neglect the purpose of doing so, which is to make life better, not prolong the pain. Long, painful life, or short and happy life? Most medical schools now have ethics courses etc. that talk about this (but which many students think "bah, ethics, I know it all, I'll be a good boy/girl" and skip it).

Hadriel

I can see how that is relevant for someone who has a very low chance of survival, in which case they might want to go out peacefully without the chemo. But it isn't exactly relevant here, since the type of cancer is an easily treatable one (in comparison at least), in its earliest stages and with a very high chance of success.

The problem here is that the doctors have taken all of that into account and decided that chemo is the best option, but the girl has denied treatment despite this, not on grounds of QoL but because of misinformation given to her by her mother.

(Also the fact that the state has taken her under its care since it ruled the mother unfit to take care of her)