Mother in a Condition and Baby Inside
by Ms. Boomer-ang
When a pregnant woman has or develops certain medical conditions or suffers certain injuries, conventional attitudes too often dictate either she or the baby must die. Actually, treatments that spare the life of both the mother and the child exist, and these approaches should be pursued more frequently.
In addition, when treatment supposedly intended to save the baby results in the death of at least the mother, public voices often blame right-to-lifers. But actually, sometimes the treatment used could suit the pro-abortion viewpoint at least as much as the anti-abortion viewpoint, and the right-to-life treatment would have been very different than the approach used.
Angela Carder
One tragic example of this, leading to the death of both the mother and the baby occurred in Washington, DC, in 1987. As narrated by Jennifer Block, in the book Pushed:
28-year-old Angela Carder, after “fight[ing] off cancer since puberty…. believe[d] she [was] in remission and beg[an] a much-wanted pregnancy.” But at 25 weeks gestation, she had “severe symptoms,” checked into George Washington Hospital, and learned she had a malignant “inoperable lung tumor.” Carder and her family “wage[d] a battle for medical treatment to save her life.” They and “her doctors all agree[d] that they should do whatever they can to keep her alive.” And if she died anyway, they started to discuss the possibility of doing an emergency C-section to save the baby. (pp 254-255)
Then they found out that a judge had ordered Carder to get a Caesarean section immediately. A neonatologist, without first talking with Carder, her family, or her doctor, had gotten a lawyer to declare Carder “as good as dead.”
Carder’s doctor argued that the operation strain could hasten Carder’s death. Her obstetrician told her he would do the operation only if she consented. Though on a respirator, “she clearly mouthed to him, ‘I don’t want it done!’ ” A judge ordered the operation done anyway. Since all the obstetricians present refuse to do it, another surgeon did it.
Although many babies born at 26 weeks survive with neonatal care, Carder’s baby died in 2 hours. Carder died in two days.
Although elsewhere in her book, Block makes valuable points against the over-medicalization of childbirth, for Carder’s death she disappointingly blames claims that the doctors and lawyers considered the life of the baby more important than the life of the mother, because they had heard right-to-life talk too many times.
Actually, the 26-week caesarean could just as easily be the result of pro-abortion and duty-to-die attitudes. They delivered the baby so early its chances of surviving were low. And they proceeded as if Carder had already died and subjected her to an operation they knew could strain her into dying more quickly.
What action would have been taken if the priority had been the mother’s life? The baby’s life? Both of their lives? Conforming to the mistaken doctrine that at least one had to die? What about comparing each of these four directions to each other and to what was actually done?
When the priority is the mother’s life, there are actually several options. In case of cancer, x-rays, chemo, and sometimes surgery have the medical gold star. Other approaches include removing stresses, stopping discomforting medications, letting nature take its course, and/or trying alternate and medical luddite approaches. Was Carder’s condition so “bad” that the only reason to use gold star treatment was for doctors, family, and/or Carder to feel they were doing something? Could Carder have lived at least as long using other approaches?
None of the treatments, gold star or other, would have required removing the baby. From the save-the-mother standpoint, reasons given to remove the baby include: that pregnancy is a strain on the mother; that some treatments work unpredictably, or differently-than-standard on pregnant women; and that ‘dealing with a new baby will threaten the mother’s recovery.’
But the strain-on-the-mother reason must be weighed against the strain that the operation to remove the baby causes. With Carder, doctors admitted the strain of caesarean probably sped her death.
From the right-to-life position, the best course of action would have been the one that would maximize the chance of both the mother and the baby surviving and living as normally as possible.
Pregnancy Strain?
Unfortunately, Carder’s case is the only one I know about where the strain of the operation was admitted to the public. Usually the strain of pregnancy argument is used to perform abortions on injured women without their permission, especially if they have never had an abortion before, manifesting the attitude ‘how can one bypass an opportunity to bring this woman into the club of those who have had at least one child deliberately killed by good guys?’ But would Carder have lived any longer if, before lifting her baby out of her womb, they had strangled, stabbed, cut it up, or sucked out its brain?
In addition, as much as pregnancy puts a strain on the woman, the baby inside her sometimes helps her. A woman “who suffered kidney failure for 22 years was kept alive during her pregnancy by her unborn child, whose kidneys” cleaned her “blood as well as his own . . . This shows [that] . . . the welfare of a mother and her unborn child are . . . intertwined. They contribute to each other’s health. When we help one, we help both; [and] if we hurt one, we hurt both.”
Furthermore, pregnant women have undergone gold star medical treatments and survived, while their baby was born alive. Even with cancer of reproductive organs.
And when baby must come out, would inducing labor and seeing how it progresses really put more strain on the mother than a Caesarean? Moreover, though it is “hard” to handle a new baby at the same time as undergoing treatment or recovery for an illness or injury, (especially without non-resentful help), cannot the joy of watching one’s new child help the recovery?
The Baby
When the priority is the baby’s life, the best thing is to keep it in the mother. Doctors have said that each week more inside the mother means more than a week less in the NICU.
Until labor starts naturally, the best incubator for a human baby is the mother’s body.
During this time, probably the best for the baby is for the mother to take as little medicine as possible. Some non-gold-star care for the mother is better than most gold-star protocols for the baby inside.
However, aggressive gold-star treatment need not be ruled out, because babies have survived it with no obvious damage. In fact, between 1973 and 2003, Dr. Agustin Avilés in Mexico City treated 84 pregnant cancer patients with chemotherapy, and all their babies survived – only 5.8% with birth defects. In a follow up study on 43 of these children, when they were between 3 and 19, “all had normal physical . . . and psychological development.” They “did fine in school.”
So one can weigh the benefits of staying in the womb with the benefits of moving into a medical incubator to avoid the risks of x-rays, chemo, anesthesia, and maintenance medicine.
Of course, if the mother becomes so close to dying her organs are in pre-death shut down, then the baby must be gotten out.
Block and others accuse too much attention to putting-baby-ahead-of-mother ideas for Carder’s treatment. But actually, if the priority had been for putting the baby first, they would have kept it inside, and kept treatments and care to things least likely to harm the baby. At least they would have kept the baby in until 28-weeks gestation, after which the survival chances for premature babies is considered good.
In 1997, Dr. Elyse Cardonick, a perinatoligist, faced a pregnant patient with Hodgkin’s disease who ‘was afraid not to be treated for cancer, but [also] . . . afraid to expose her fetus to drugs,’ and did not want the recommended abortion. Dr. Cardonick did research, found out about Dr. Aviles’ work, and successfully argued to her hospital ethics panel that, “It’s not a choice between you and your baby; we can take care of you both.” As a result, “her patient gave birth to a healthy child.”
Assumptions
Obstacles to maintaining the lives of both the mother and the baby include two unfortunate assumptions that are so widespread that even some right-to-lifers cannot avoid falling for them.
One is that pregnancy and childbirth are or ought to be the most dangerous and suffering-causing thing that can happen to a woman. The other is that in some circumstances somebody must die to give the other a chance of surviving.
One can note that to find cases where a pregnant woman was treated for cancer and her baby survived, a US doctor had to look at results from Mexico. At that time, abortion was illegal in Mexico. As killing babies becomes part of medicine in more countries, will fewer places be willing or even allowed to try save-both treatments?
How can the aim of both the mother and the baby coming through the situation alive be restored to medical attitudes? Bringing up some examples in the references would not hurt. But that might not be enough. What else can be done?
Even when a pregnant woman is injured or ill, the goal should be for both the mother and the baby to survive. Some cases show that this is possible, sometimes with both living normally ever after. A challenge is to publicize and remind people of these cases and to convince courts, policy makers, and medical people to allow and encourage trying to repeat or improve their results.
==================
For another post on this topic, see:
Creating a Loophole on the Life of the Mother Exception
For more posts from Ms. Boomer-ang, see:
“Shut Up and Enjoy it!”: Abortion Promoters who Sexually Pressure Women
Asking Questions about Miscarriage and Abortion
The Danger of Coerced Euthanasia: Questions to Ask
Conviction When Real Guilt is Irrelevant
The complete list is on the Author Page with authors listed alphabetically.’
Leave a Reply