I’ve read so many stories in the papers about young girls with cancer who are pregnant at the same time and refuse treatment cos it might harm their baby. Surely the most important person is the one who is already here ie. the mother. Without her what would become of the baby if she died after giving birth or was too ill to look after him/her.
Or if the woman has other kids the mother would risk her health and life and leave her other kids without a mother for the sake of this new baby. I’m sorry but I just cant understand how anyone can do that. They describe it as brave and courageous but I dont think theres anything brave about that.
Its a very emotional dilemma and to be honest theres no right or wrong answer. I personally knew of a patient who was diagosed with cancer while still in her first trimester. The dilemma she faced was to go ahead with chemotherapy to help control the cancer and prevent it from spreading with risk to the foetus (first trimester being the most critical) or to have no chemotherapy at all for next 7 odd months or so. In the end it was decided to go for a balance, choosing the lowest risk chemo possible to the foetus at the expense of treatment effectiveness.
I agree with u…however, i feel i can’t say anything against these women who really want a baby…just the fact that they r refusing treatment for their own health, says a lot…perhaps they feel that at least there will be someone left in the world with their own flesh n blood…perhaps they do it for another loved one (husband, grandparent)…maybe they know if something happens to them, then there are ppl who will take care of their child…maybe it’s something they have dreamed of their entire lives…it’s so sad really…on one hand, they r facing death (maybe)…and on the other, the beauty of bringing a new life into the world…it seems like a very selfish act for those of us who r not in that situation…but God knows wot these women r really feeling and their true intentions.
Islamically, I think an abortion is permitted if there is a hazard to the mother's health. So does that mean that since the presence of a fetus prohibits treatment necessary to eradicate the cancer (well at least a chance eradication), then it is permissable to abort the child so that the mom can undergo the chemo treatment?
I know that chemo therapies differ based on the type of cancer and stage, so I'm sure there are ways to do it despite the presence of a fetus. But I'm sure in some instances, its either the chemo or the baby.
In a nutshell, cancer at a young age (e.g. 30-35 years) is not common. Most probably they are at an earlier stage and can be treated easily or left untreated, depending on certain factors.
When we talk about cancer, not every cancer is detrimental to the baby or mother
Most of the patients with cancer diagnosed before getting pregnant can elect not to become pregnant till adequate treatment (if possible) can be given
Although there is a theoratical risk of cancer diagnosed during pregnancy for the baby, most women can go through pregnancy without complications.
The cancers that are hormone dependent, are the ones to progress during pregnancy..... e.g. breast cancer, not liver cancer.........
It also depends upon the stage of the cancer............ because stage determines the treatment modality.