+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Mother or Child?

  1. #1
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,339

    Default Mother or Child?

    It starts with a newly pregant woman having to make a choice between chemotherapy for neck cancer and carrying a child to term. If she has chemotherapy, she will lose the child she was carrying and never be able to have children. If she did not have the chemotherapy, it would be terminal, but the child had a possible of being surviving.

    In this case, the women in question decided that she would rather try and carry the child to term and in doing so condemn herself.

    The mother only survived a few days beyond the birth of the child who is now with her brother as the biological father is nowhere to be seen.

    Did she do the right thing?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  2. #2
    Yes, I'm a cat. What's it to you? Muffin's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northwestern Ontario 48°17'42.8"N,89°23'21.2"W
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Her choice and her choice only, so no wright or wrong thing.

  3. #3
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,884

    Default

    If she'd had other children, I'd say she didn't "do the right thing", because she would have been abandoning them for the sake of this child. I feel pretty strongly about people putting the unborn ahead of the needs of their other children. But considering this was the only successful pregnancy she ever had, yeah, it was her choice. She was the only one who could make that decision.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  4. #4
    Yes, I'm a cat. What's it to you? Muffin's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northwestern Ontario 48°17'42.8"N,89°23'21.2"W
    Posts
    489

    Default

    The article does not get into what the anticipated prognosis was should she have undergone treatment. Would chemo have had a high chance of success, or was it a hail Mary pass? We don't know from the article if her decision was one of sacrificing her probability of a long and healthy life, or was one of sacrificing the probability of a slight extension to an otherwise soon to end life, or was one based on a best guess due to it not being possible to make any somewhat reliable prognosis.
    Last edited by Muffin; 18 Oct 2011 at 11:00 AM.

  5. #5
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Her decision. I'm not sure I would have made the same choice in her situation, though I may have, but it was her choice to make.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  6. #6
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,889

    Default

    How incredibly brave she was. I think I agree with Zuul on this one...if she had other kids, her obligation is to try to stay alive. Given that she didn't, it's her choice entirely. I'm not sure I could have made her choice.

  7. #7
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,170

    Default

    I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have made her choice, and I'm waffling on whether I think she was brave or stupid, but still. It could only be her choice to make.

  8. #8
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Wow, what a strange tale. It reminds me of the plot arc of the Travis McGee books by John MacDonald (unbeknownst to him, his married lover gets pregnant by him and gets cancer - she refuses treatment and dies so that her baby lives, and Travis finds out he is a dad only when his daughter is 15).

    Her choice, definitely, although I wonder what additional information she had that readers of the story don't: what likelihood was she given that the baby would have to be born prematurely, and would possibly be harmed by her body's inability to gestate in a healthy way while fighting cancer? How does her brother feel about getting this child to raise? Did she have any loved ones (we know she didn't have other children) who relied on her emotionally? What odds did the doctors give her for the likelihood that cancer treatment would be a success? (If I was told I'd probably die anyway, that would certainly sway me in favor of carrying the child.)

    Assuming that cancer treatment had some hope of curing me, I don't think I would have made the same choice she did. Also, I wonder if the child's father is aware of her pregnancy? (You can't really hold him responsible if he thought he was sleeping with a proven infertile woman; but still, maybe he would like to know that he's produced offspring.)
    Last edited by Hatshepsut; 19 Oct 2011 at 02:11 AM.

  9. #9
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,931

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Muffin View post
    Her choice and her choice only, so no wright or wrong thing.
    This, but I'd have gone for Option B personally.

  10. #10
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,339

    Default

    The main other factor that gets to me in this case is that at least the child has someone who is prepared to adopt and raise it as they would their own children. In some ways, I could say that going through it and dumping the child on another family is selfish in itself, not to mention darwinian. But I am glad that it looks like her brother's family are happy to raise the child.

    If there was no other family, I would have called it extremely selfish indeed.

    I really hope that in the future, this isn't bought up time and again against the kid, that their mother died for them etc. etc.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  11. #11
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,884

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I really hope that in the future, this isn't bought up time and again against the kid, that their mother died for them etc. etc.
    I'd really hope not as well. Of course, things are safer than they could be and maternal death is a relatively rare thing in most of the developed world, but it does still happen. The risk of death is something that, slim though it might be, exists every time a woman has a child. Whether it was as a martyr to cancer or because of a cerebral hemorrhage owing to pre-eclampsia, I imagine it can haunt a kid to lose his or her mother like that.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  12. #12
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    I really hope that in the future, this isn't bought up time and again against the kid, that their mother died for them etc. etc.
    I'd really hope not as well....I imagine it can haunt a kid to lose his or her mother like that.
    I wish people would think of things like that when they neglect to give consideration for life saving medical treatment into "personhood" bills.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  13. #13
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,339

    Default

    "Personhood bills"??? - this is some American thing I really don't want to know about do I.

    Also, someone mentioned a new federal law just been passed that hospitals don't have to provide abortions even if it would put the mother at risk and can't be sued if the mother dies. Surely that cannot be true?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  14. #14
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    "Personhood bills"??? - this is some American thing I really don't want to know about do I.
    Personhood USA is an organization that wants to get every state constitution in the country amended to include a definition of "person" that begins the moment sperm meets egg. They've failed three times in Colorado, so they've moved over to Mississippi. I've seen enough pink and white "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" signs that I'd seriously move if I had the means.

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Also, someone mentioned a new federal law just been passed that hospitals don't have to provide abortions even if it would put the mother at risk and can't be sued if the mother dies. Surely that cannot be true?
    This is what happens when politicians realize that the fundies have money, and then the fundies become politicians. My dad's a pastor and he thinks it's bullshit. Then again, he has three daughters whom he wants to see happy, successful, independent, and--you know--not dead.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts