
Rosa HernandezIn heartbreaking news this weekend, a 16-year-old pregnant teenager died after doctors initially refused to give her chemotherapy treatments. Their reason: The medicine that very well may have saved her life could have potentially killed her unborn child, which would go against the anti-abortion laws in the Dominican Republic where she lived.
According to CNN, she was 10 weeks pregnant when she was admitted to the hospital because of complications from leukemia. While the country debated her fate, the cancer was attacking her body. Though finally, more than 20 days after she was admitted, they finally relented and gave her chemo, it was too late. She died Friday, after miscarrying the baby, and it's absolutely outrageous that this happened.
I don't care how pro-life you are, I don't understand how anyone could deny a mother the right to choose to treat a fatal disease. Plenty of mothers may do so willingly, but to be told that you MUST put your life in danger for the sake of a baby you may never live to raise or even meet is unfathomable. On airplanes they tell us to help ourselves before we help our children; even in Catholic school I was taught that if a mother's life is at risk, that's an exception for abortion. And this girl wasn't even intentionally trying to abort a child -- she just wanted to try to save her own life.
It's especially tragic on the heels of a study that came out last week that found chemotherapy during pregnancy doesn't affect babies. Of course, that was just one study, but still to think that this girl -- who hasn't been named due to her age -- could possibly still be alive if she'd been given the medication she needed when she needed it is appalling.
Now her mother, Rosa Hernandez, is left to grieve the loss of her young daughter's life. She told CNN:
They have killed me, I'm dead, dead. I'm nothing. She was the reason for my existence. I no longer live. Rosa has died. Let the world know that Rosa is dead.
Condolences to her, and may her daughter's death not be in vain. Hopefully, it will help persuade those in the Dominican and elsewhere that a woman's life is at least as important as that of her unborn baby, and that pregnancy shouldn't prevent women from taking steps necessary to save their own lives. Whether giving the chemo immediately would have save the girl or not is unknown, but she and her family should have been able to find out.
If you found out you had cancer while you were pregnant would you undergo whatever treatments were necessary to save your life, even if there was a potential risk to your unborn child?
Image via CNN


Ashley Is a Widow Who Stays Strong...
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
















Comments 17
Great, now because of their misguided thinking, BOTH the mother AND the unborn baby are dead. Way to protect that fetus' rights! SMH
I can't even wrap my head around this, at 10 weeks the only thing that could have saved the fetus would have been treating the mom...
I am staunchly pro-life - but you don't withhold lifesaving treatment because it might kill the other person. I read a comment a while back that I loved - Two people in are car accident, trapped under a car. The person in the front will die if you remove him from the car. THe person in the back has a chance at surviving if you remove the person in the front. Obviously you remove the person in the front (he is going to die no matter what) but you don't pull out a gun and shoot him in the head - because he is going to die anyway.
To me that illustrates perfectly what you do when the mother's life is in danger. Either go ahead with treatment and hope baby survives, or if needed, remove the baby and if there is a chance of baby's survival - try to save the baby too. But you don't kill the mom or kill the baby because 'they are going to die anyway.'
So sad for this woman's family. This is not how it should be. :( So very sorry.
I know that there was a delay in treatment, but she died because her body didn't respond to the chemotherapy and then she rejected a blood transfusion, miscarried, and had a heart attack.
It seems misleading to say that she died because she didn't receive treatment when there is no way of knowing how advanced the disease was when she entered the hospital. Given the fact that she didn't respond to the chemo there is no way of knowing IF she would have fared better if treatment had started earlier.
This is not an isolated incident. Other countries have similar laws and it happens there as well.
In Nicaragua, doctors will monitor tubal ectopic pregnancies until they rupture, then do surgery. The pregnancy can't be saved, the woman is in danger or bleeding to death, and the woman loses a tube possibly impacting her future fertility, but they can't do anything until that point thanks to a total ban on abortion. (from The Means of Reproduction)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21601045/ns/health/t/women-die-after-nicaraguas-ban-abortions/#.UDKYvqBPIuc
http://global.christianpost.com/news/abortion-ban-in-nicaragua-needlessly-endangering-womens-lives-say-activists-60425/
Any time a young person loses their life it is heartbreaking. I don't think we really know enough about this particulare case to know whether an earlier administration of chemotherapy would have had an impact. Having said that, I'd like to point out a fallacy in the JenB's: Babies have survived ectopic pregnancies. Extra-uterine pregnancies are not an automatic death sentence for the babies.
how sad 2 lives dead because of this