Mother Sacrifices Self, Delays Treatment So She Can Deliver Baby
This is a sad but glorious story of selfless maternal/paternal love, but I think that at one time, it would have been the expected course: A doctor recounts the decision of a woman diagnosed with brain cancer to delay surgery in order to bring her baby to birth. From the story:
For the neurosurgeon, the verdict was clear: An immediate operation was needed to remove the growing tumor. The invasive and complicated surgery -- under many hours of general anesthesia -- was likely to greatly increase the risk of fetal injury or death...
The oncologist said that if the surgery were delayed until the child was ready for life outside the womb, the cancer would probably be untreatable. The obstetrician said that if the mother-to-be agreed to the recommended surgery and subsequent chemotherapy, the fetus was unlikely to survive. The woman was faced with a heartbreaking choice -- her own survival or her child's.
The young couple spoke quietly to each other in their native language for a few minutes as the specialists waited. Even I, who had chosen to study pediatrics because I loved children, reluctantly acknowledged that the woman's care was the medical priority. Wouldn't I -- wouldn't everyone? -- opt for life-saving intervention for myself? Wouldn't we all yield to the natural instinct to survive?
The young woman's voice was firm as she turned back to the specialists. She wanted to delay surgery for four weeks, until after her baby could be born with the odds in its favor.
No not everyone would. I have a friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer during a pregnancy. She delayed treatment for several months until her child could be born. She died nine years later from the disease, never once regretting her decision.
Back to the doctor's reminiscence: The woman fell into a coma and the baby was delivered at 28 weeks. She had the tumor removed and lived long enough to see her baby:
One morning, a week later, I was overjoyed to see the young woman, her head shaved and bandaged, make her way into the NICU and approach her baby's incubator, step by careful step as she leaned on her husband's arm. After tenderly gazing at the tiny girl, she reached in to stroke her baby's soft, thin skin. Her hand inched toward her daughter's. The baby responded by clasping her mother's outstretched finger, bringing tears to her parents' eyes -- and ours. The new parents didn't need to know that the grasp was an involuntary reflex; to the young mother, it was a sign that her baby had felt her love.
The headline described the young woman as a "mother to be." That is flat-out wrong: She was already a mother, which was why she decided that her baby's life was most important.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
One woman dead, a child born into ICU and destined to know his doctors very well, and newly minted widow with an infant. This is not a good story at all! Aborting that baby would have been the rational approach.
One unviable fetus sacrificed for the potential future of many more fetuses(sp?), the mother would be alive, the father would not be condemned to depression and trying to raise a childby himself at the same time, and the families of both won't have to suffer the loss of someone they've loved for so long. This wasn't courageous, it was inconsiderate on her part for many will suffer for this choice she made. Having another baby might get her over having to have aborted this one, at the least it would help. The ethics of this are only complicated by this notion of life begining before viability and that the life of a unviable fetus is more important than all of the reprecussions of her choice. Her reward is not having to live with her choice, while everyone else does! Including the child who will have never known it's mother
I respect the notion that it was her life to give and if I would have been her doctor on this I would have let her do this, but with extreme protest on the grounds that she is not making a choice for herself alone but for everyone she loves!
What a conundrum to have been so selfless and yet so thoughtless in the same breath.
Doctors need to be a voice of reason in the face of irrational, emotional stupidity. I read this article and it makes it sound as if the doctors resorted to fear-mongering when begging and pleading didn't work after simple advice didn't work. When your patient chooses to DIE for a cause, do you think she cares about her own pain?! Her notion that what she was doing was the right thing should have been challenged and shown to be double-edged!
I'm sorry to be so forceful with my opinion but this was not a good story and I challenge everyone to reconsider their thinking that what she did was the best course of action.
from reading your opinion, is that you are ultimately anti-choice. You claim that you "respect the notion that it was her life to give", but everything else you say belies that claim.
Though I think it's reminiscent of the argument set forth by some conservatives who claim that telling them they're wrong is denying them their free speech. Equadmail has me pegged, I'm very much a House style thinker. House will do what you ultimately decide, but he'll let you know if you're wrong before doing it. (btw, everyone who watches House has compared my way of thinking to his when given the opportunity. And I knew House and I thought the same way after the first episode.)
My point was that she made the less wise choice, not the wrong choice. I don't believe in the black and white characterization of the debate, maybe thats why you got that impression. Maybe you're so used to the dichotomy of right v wrong with regard to abortion that you see that a pro-choice position is equivalent to claiming that the choice is always correct or best.
I absolutely support this womens choice. Like I stated in my comment, I would have done whatever she chose. That is the pro-choice position. But as a believer in logic and reason, I simply argue that the choice was not the best choice and my forcefulness was in response to the praise given to the choice as if it were the wisest. I praise her right to choose, but I simply think she made a choice that did more harm than the abortion option and I tried to explain why.
I don't believe that a choice for or against a particular abortion can ever truly be judged as right or wrong, it is simply a choice that falls along a sliding scale as measured by the observer or actor.
I call myself pro-free-speech. That only means that I fight for the right, not the message. I don't support the neo-Nazis but I would defend there right to speak. I support freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean I support what they teach.
It's been a while since I've been here, so I don't know/remember you're positions. Are you pro-choice? If so, do you just blindly support and agree with every abortion choice you've heard of someone making, for or against an abortion?
Otherwise you're argument seems like the same style of reasoning that is used when someone claims that supporters of tolerance are hypocrite for opposing the intolerant. They say: "You're not actually tolerant! You're intolerant of the intolerant."
Which sound logical on the surface, but is just a simplistic approach to the subject. An either neophytic or contrarian response to a complicated issue. The latter an appropriate way of testing ideas and actions for consistency and soundness. The former without arrogance is excellent and portrays honest inquiry. The former with arrogance is just irratating and an attack on an opponents position, regardless of success.
What's your position on this?
a lot like Dr. Gregory House. I would agree with you but for the portion of the story where she spoke with her husband. If they decided together to risk it then he shares as much of the responsibility for the decision as she does.