• yankeegospelgirl

    I’m not entirely sure whether I would want to go through chemo-therapy either if I was told it wouldn’t save my life anyway—only give me a couple more miserable years. When you add the pregnancy into the mix, the decision should be a matter of course.

    • Christiane

      The question facing voters at the polls would likely include whether or not a candidate thought that there should BE a ‘decision’ . . .

      is this one of the areas where legislation will be introduced to forbid chemotherapy to pregnant women as a matter ‘of course’;
      or is this an area reserved for the mother, her family, and her doctors to decide ?

      I think the young woman was very good to want for her baby to live and to be well. I do not know if chemo would have saved her life, or, if used, in the process, it would have harmed the infant . . .
      but she at least made the decision for her baby’s sake . . . and that is a mother’s love at its most unselfish.

      The voting public will need clear parameters about what kinds of legislation might be coming down the pike to be planned that, if in place now, would have taken that mother’s decision away from her.

      The public has a right to know before going to the polls.

      • yankeegospelgirl

        This is something some people don’t seem to understand: Doctors WILL NOT perform chemo on a woman known to be pregnant, because they could be sued. They will only perform chemo AFTER the child has been aborted.

        Yes, I know, it’s completely illogical. “We don’t want to do chemo on you because you’re pregnant, and it might harm the baby. Of course, if you’d like us to do an abortion, we’d be happy to kill your child directly so you can proceed with the treatment.”