Pregnant teen dies after abortion ban delays cancer treatment

[Desk trauma]

(CNN) -- The mother of a pregnant leukemia patient who died after her chemotherapy was delayed over anti- abortion laws is accusing doctors of not putting her daughter's health first.

The 16-year-old's plight attracted worldwide attention after she had to wait for chemotherapy because of an abortion ban in the Dominican Republic.

 

[Syrokal]

Absolutely tragic, and inhumane.

 

[IanCG]

She was 13 weeks pregnant when she died. And this is what many people want for America.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It sound like she would have died anyways, with that being said, they should have treated her anyways.

 

[Paradoxum]

And I assume the baby died anyway? Highly immoral and stupid.

 

[Blayz]

It sound like she would have died anyways

Got any reality to support that conclusion?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Got any reality to support that conclusion?

She was only 13 weeks pregnant when the baby died. I'm guessing she was in a bad situation, before even going to the hospital. Since she she wasn't in the hospital for a month before she treatment.

Some 20 days after she was admitted to the hospital, she finally started receiving treatment.

I still think they should have started the treatment sooner, but I still don't believe she wouldn't made it. I think she went to the hospital to late, in the first place.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I agree with all that said it was too late, 13 weeks is a short time so the illness must have spread quite far.

 

[Amber Bird]

The priority for the life in this story was clearly pointed in the wrong direction.

God rest her soul. And bring peace to her mother and the family and friends who grieve a senseless heart wrenching loss.

May the lawmakers learn from their mistake. And may optimism have a prayer.

 

[Blayz]

She was only 13 weeks pregnant when the baby died. I'm guessing she was in a bad situation, before even going to the hospital. Since she she wasn't in the hospital for a month before she treatment. I still think they should have started the treatment sooner, but I still don't believe she wouldn't made it. I think she went to the hospital to late, in the first place.

I agree with all that said it was too late, 13 weeks is a short time so the illness must have spread quite far.

So just to clarify, two people entirely ignorant of the biology of cancer "think" (and I use that word in it's loosest possible form) that she "probably wouldn't have made it anyway".

Argument from complete ignorance. With no reality at all to back the conclusion. Excellent.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Acute refers to the relatively short time course of the disease (being fatal in as little as a few weeks if left untreated)"

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I can imagine a lot of people justifying her death with the errenous belief that she "probably wouldn't have made it anyways, so witholding her treatment because of her pregnancy/abortion is ok". Afterall, whats worse, one dead teen mom and her unborn child or "millions of innocent victims" of abortion...further justifying the abortion ban. All I can say is thank goodness I am not Dominican and I'll be darned before I let the nutters do that here.

 

[Verticordious]

Liberals are no doubt going to blame the law, but the law isn't the reason she died. Stupid doctors/politicians are the reason she died. The logic of refusing to treat an otherwise terminally ill mother because the treatment might kill the baby is just plain stupid. If the mother dies so does the baby, so letting the mother die in order to save the baby obviously won't work. Doesn't matter what the law is, if you apply it stupidly people could die as a result.

Laws were never meant rigid and without exception. There will always be the possibility of circumstances the writers of the law didn't think of, as well as circumstances where there will be no consensus on what choice is the moral choice. The obvious intent of abortion is to prevent a mother from murdering an innocent baby just because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced, which is what >99% of all abortions are. In these extremely rare, no-win, the family should be allowed to make whatever choice they believe is right unless there is some compelling reason to believe they do not have any concern for the child's life.

 

[Blayz]

Liberals are no doubt going to blame the law, but the law isn't the reason she died. Stupid doctors/politicians are the reason she died. The logic of refusing to treat an otherwise terminally ill mother because the treatment might kill the baby is just plain stupid. If the mother dies so does the baby, so letting the mother die in order to save the baby obviously won't work. Doesn't matter what the law is, if you apply it stupidly people could die as a result.

Laws were never meant rigid and without exception. There will always be the possibility of circumstances the writers of the law didn't think of, as well as circumstances where there will be no consensus on what choice is the moral choice. The obvious intent of abortion is to prevent a mother from murdering an innocent baby just because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced, which is what >99% of all abortions are. In these extremely rare, no-win, the family should be allowed to make whatever choice they believe is right unless there is some compelling reason to believe they do not have any concern for the child's life.

All (mostly)* true, but so long as there are people out there that think "she probably wouldn't have made it anyway" is some kind of justification, it will keep on happening.

*I am surprised at the "murdering an innocent" line. You usually strike me as an intelligent poster. I'd have thought you knew the definition of murder.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Liberals are no doubt going to blame the law, but the law isn't the reason she died. Stupid doctors/politicians are the reason she died. The logic of refusing to treat an otherwise terminally ill mother because the treatment might kill the baby is just plain stupid. If the mother dies so does the baby, so letting the mother die in order to save the baby obviously won't work. Doesn't matter what the law is, if you apply it stupidly people could die as a result.

Laws were never meant rigid and without exception. There will always be the possibility of circumstances the writers of the law didn't think of, as well as circumstances where there will be no consensus on what choice is the moral choice. The obvious intent of abortion is to prevent a mother from murdering an innocent baby just because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced, which is what >99% of all abortions are. In these extremely rare, no-win, the family should be allowed to make whatever choice they believe is right unless there is some compelling reason to believe they do not have any concern for the child's life.

I'm far more right than I am left, but regardless the laws ARE the problem. Imagine it..the doctors give the chemo. or whatever other treatment the mother needs that endanger's her child's life, the child dies, and the doctor is on the hook for an unlawful abortion. Then they lose their liscense, their homes, their livelihoods, and ultimately end up in a Dominican jail. I don't know many people who would risk all that when push comes to shove..especially medical professionals who work their whole lives to get to where they are. But maybe I just don't know the right people.

 

[keith99]

Liberals are no doubt going to blame the law, but the law isn't the reason she died. Stupid doctors/politicians are the reason she died. The logic of refusing to treat an otherwise terminally ill mother because the treatment might kill the baby is just plain stupid. If the mother dies so does the baby, so letting the mother die in order to save the baby obviously won't work. Doesn't matter what the law is, if you apply it stupidly people could die as a result.

Laws were never meant rigid and without exception. There will always be the possibility of circumstances the writers of the law didn't think of, as well as circumstances where there will be no consensus on what choice is the moral choice. The obvious intent of abortion is to prevent a mother from murdering an innocent baby just because she doesn't want to be inconvenienced, which is what >99% of all abortions are. In these extremely rare, no-win, the family should be allowed to make whatever choice they believe is right unless there is some compelling reason to believe they do not have any concern for the child's life.

What? It does not matter what the law says? Law is rigid and if one does not obey the lay one risks the consequences.

You might want to bother to look up the law for the Dominician Republic.

The physicians involved quite correctly feared prison and/or loss of their license to practice medicine.

BTW the Wiki on the Dominician law specifically mentions this case and the dealy was 10 weeks. For Cancer more than enough time to change a very good prognosis to a death.
Abortion in the Dominican Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[QuiltAngel]

So just to clarify, two people entirely ignorant of the biology of cancer "think" (and I use that word in it's loosest possible form) that she "probably wouldn't have made it anyway".

Argument from complete ignorance. With no reality at all to back the conclusion. Excellent.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Acute refers to the relatively short time course of the disease (being fatal in as little as a few weeks if left untreated)"

Not only does it have a rapid onset, but if treated with combined chemotherapy, 80 -90% have long term survival. My source is my nursing textbook from my recent class on this.

This is one of those grey areas when it comes to abortion. I know that in the US, when it is a choice of mother or baby in matters of life and death, the medical community is to save the mother, unless otherwise directed from an Advanced Directive.

Sadly, the situation such as this young woman does create ethical decisions and that can take a while to sort out, but 4 weeks? I agree that the DR needs to reconsider their no exception clause.

 

[Verticordious]

I'm far more right than I am left, but regardless the laws ARE the problem. Imagine it..the doctors give the chemo. or whatever other treatment the mother needs that endanger's her child's life, the child dies, and the doctor is on the hook for an unlawful abortion. Then they lose their liscense, their homes, their livelihoods, and ultimately end up in a Dominican jail. I don't know many people who would risk all that when push comes to shove..especially medical professionals who work their whole lives to get to where they are. But maybe I just don't know the right people.

That's not a problem with the law, that's a problem with the law interpreters/enforcers.

Last year I was at the light of a busy intersection when a firetruck was trying to get through, and so we cautiously drove into the intersection and cleared a path for the firetruck. Would you also argue that traffic laws are to blame for deaths when emergency vehicles are delayed, and that they should be abolished? Obviously not. Traffic laws have been around for decades, so perhaps there is already a written exception for a situations like this, but even if there is not I would hope people are smart enough to understand that emergency vehicles are an exception to the rule. Likewise, situations where both the mother and the baby are in danger of dying is an exception to the rule. Mindless judges and doctors who follow the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law are to blame for the girl's death.

 

[QuiltAngel]

We need to remember that this is not US law at work in this case. In the US, this scenario would have gone down much differently. In the DR. there seems to be an issue with the enforcement and the doctors wanted to be sure that they would not be prosecuted. It is very sad that this teen and her baby died due to the delay in treatment. OTOH, her case brings to light the major flaw in the law there. We can mourn her loss, yet realize too that she has paved the way for this not to happen to someone else.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This is a touchy subject for me since one of my friends had cancer while she was pregnant and against the advice of a good number of doctors delayed treatment while pregnant. Her baby boy was born at 26 weeks and is currently a thriving 6 month old. Her prognosis is not good, but she is living each day to the fullest and spending as much time with her son as possible.

There's a chance that had she terminated her pregnancy and opted for treatment that she'd be in the same boat she's in now.

So it's hard for me...but this being a 13 year old makes it doubly hard.

 

[Desk trauma]

There's a chance that had she terminated her pregnancy and opted for treatment that she'd be in the same boat she's in now.

That may very well have been the case but we will never know. My position is that she should have had the final say in her medical decisions rather then the state.