One tragic example of this, leading to the death of both the mother and the baby occurred in Washington, DC, in 1987.\u00a0 \u00a0As narrated by\u00a0Jennifer Block, in the book\u00a0Pushed<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n 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\u00a0at 25 weeks gestation, she had “severe symptoms,” checked into George Washington Hospital, and learned she had a malignant “inoperable lung tumor.”\u00a0 Carder and her family “wage[d] a battle for medical treatment to save her life.”\u00a0 They and “her doctors all agree[d] that they should do whatever\u00a0they can to keep her alive.”\u00a0 And if she died anyway, they started to discuss the possibility of doing an emergency C-section to save the baby. (pp 254-255)<\/p>\n Then they found out that a judge had ordered Carder to get a Caesarean section immediately.\u00a0A neonatologist, without first talking with Carder, her family, or her doctor, had gotten a lawyer to declare Carder “as good as dead.”<\/p>\n Carder’s doctor argued that the operation strain could hasten Carder’s death.\u00a0 Her obstetrician told her he\u00a0would do the operation only if she consented.\u00a0 Though on a respirator, “she clearly mouthed to him, ‘I don’t want it done!’ ”\u00a0 A judge ordered the operation done anyway.\u00a0 Since all the obstetricians present refuse to do it, another surgeon did it.<\/p>\n Although many babies born at 26 weeks survive with neonatal care, Carder’s baby died in 2 hours.\u00a0 Carder died in two days.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Actually, the 26-week caesarean could just as easily be the result of pro-abortion and duty-to-die attitudes.\u00a0 They delivered the baby so\u00a0early its chances of surviving were low.\u00a0\u00a0And they proceeded as if Carder had already died and subjected her to an operation they knew could strain her into dying more quickly.<\/p>\n What action would have been taken if the priority had been the mother’s life?\u00a0 The baby’s life?\u00a0 Both of their lives?\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n When the priority is the mother’s life,\u00a0there are actually several options.\u00a0 In case of cancer, x-rays, chemo, and sometimes surgery have the medical gold star.\u00a0 Other approaches include removing stresses, stopping discomforting medications, letting nature take its course, and\/or trying alternate and medical luddite approaches.\u00a0 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?\u00a0 Could Carder have lived at least as long using other approaches?<\/p>\n None of the treatments, gold star or other, would have required removing the baby.\u00a0 From the save-the-mother standpoint, reasons given to remove the baby include:\u00a0 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.’<\/p>\n But the strain-on-the-mother reason must be weighed against the strain that the operation to remove the baby causes.\u00a0 With Carder, doctors admitted the strain of caesarean probably sped her death.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Unfortunately,\u00a0Carder’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\u00a0club 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?<\/p>\n In addition, as much as pregnancy puts a strain on the woman, the baby inside her sometimes helps her<\/a>.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 They contribute to each other’s health.\u00a0 When we help one, we help both; [and] if we hurt one, we hurt both.”<\/p>\n Furthermore, pregnant women have undergone gold star medical treatments<\/a> and survived, while their baby was born alive.\u00a0\u00a0Even with cancer of reproductive organs<\/a>.<\/p>\n And when baby must come out, would inducing labor and seeing how it progresses really put more strain on the mother than a Caesarean?\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n When the priority is the baby’s life, the best thing is to keep it in the mother.\u00a0 Doctors have said that each week more inside the mother means more than a week less in the NICU.<\/p>\n Until labor starts naturally, the best incubator for a human baby is the mother’s body.<\/p>\n During this time, probably the best for the baby is for the mother to take as little medicine as possible.\u00a0 Some non-gold-star care for the mother is better than most gold-star protocols for the baby inside.<\/p>\n However, aggressive gold-star treatment need not be ruled out, because babies have survived it with no obvious damage.\u00a0 In fact, between 1973 and 2003<\/a>, Dr. Agustin Avil\u00e9s in Mexico City treated 84 pregnant cancer patients with chemotherapy, and all their babies survived \u2013 only 5.8% with birth defects.\u00a0 In a follow up study on 43 of these children, when they were between 3 and 19, “all had normal physical . . .\u00a0 and psychological development.”\u00a0 They “did fine in school.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Block and others accuse too much attention to putting-baby-ahead-of-mother ideas for Carder’s treatment.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 At least they would have kept the baby in until 28-weeks gestation, after which the survival chances for premature babies is considered good.<\/p>\n In 1997, Dr. Elyse Cardonick,<\/a> 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.\u00a0 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.”\u00a0<\/strong>As a result, “her patient gave birth to a healthy child.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n One is that pregnancy and childbirth are or ought\u00a0to be the most dangerous and suffering-causing thing that can happen to a\u00a0woman.\u00a0 The other is that in some circumstances somebody must die to give the other a chance of surviving.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 At that time, abortion was illegal in Mexico.\u00a0 As killing babies becomes part of medicine in more countries, will fewer places be willing or even allowed to try save-both treatments?<\/p>\n How can the aim of both the mother and the baby coming through the situation alive be restored to medical attitudes?\u00a0 Bringing up some examples in the references would not hurt.\u00a0 But that might not be enough.\u00a0 What else can be done?<\/p>\n Even when a pregnant woman is injured or ill, the goal should be for both the mother and the baby to survive.\u00a0 \u00a0Some cases show that this is possible, sometimes with both living\u00a0 normally ever after.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n ==================<\/p>\n For another post on this topic, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Creating a Loophole on the Life of the Mother Exception<\/a><\/p>\n For more posts from Ms. Boomer-ang, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cShut Up and Enjoy it!\u201d: Abortion Promoters who Sexually Pressure Women<\/a><\/p>\n Asking Questions about Miscarriage and Abortion<\/a><\/p>\n The Danger of Coerced Euthanasia: Questions to Ask<\/a><\/p>\n Conviction When Real Guilt is Irrelevant<\/a><\/p>\n The complete list is on the Author Page<\/a> with authors listed alphabetically.’<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/1-blog-pregnant-woman.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPregnancy Strain?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The Baby<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Assumptions<\/strong><\/h3>\n