I have been thinking about my own choices in pregnancy -- I was pretty committed to having the baby already when the issues showed up but had I said oh hell no I am pretty sure I would have had the option of an abortion, though probably not from the doctor I was seeing. The first time it was pregnancy-induced hypertension. Not usually permanent but it can (and did) become pre-eclampsia, which is potentially fatal (to both mother and baby). I was hospitalized for a week and on bed rest for over three months. The second time it was gestational diabetes, which is often a permanent change.
I also developed really severe carpal tunnel in the second pregnancy. The surgeon said no. No surgery in pregnancy. I threw a fit as the obstetrician was telling me that in the second trimester danger to the child was almost zero, and I was *very* incapacitated. At the time I was in a programming class and I had a two-year-old and I could barely use my hands at all, not to open doorknobs or pick up a glass with just one hand. I mention this as an example of a case where increasing incapacitation of the mother is weighed against negligeable risk to the fetus. After the surgeon consulted with the obstetrician, he did perform the surgery.
Chemo on the other hand would certainly pose a grave risk. If she waited, she may have been thinking that if she died she would at least have left a child. Or maybe she just felt that the benefits outweighted the risks.
But yeah... how could anyone decide that for someone else?
Dana
> about the breast cancer after she concieved. I personally would have
> aborted the fetus and started chemo right away.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
