Reply #30: follow up question

[LisaLL]

Maybeline,

>How can anyone know with certainty that the baby she carries has a >condition that is incompatible with life outside of the womb? Does >the doctor have all inclusive knowledge?

There are certain conditions that are diagnosable by ultrasound or by amniocentesis that are fatal. Many are absolutely diagnosable. And doctors do not take it lightly to make such a diagnosis. Anencephaly is one such condition, some chromosomal abnormalities also. Others like Tay Sachs are 100% fatal in the first year or two. I personally find it inhumane to force a woman who desparately wants a baby to continue a pregnancy that has no chance of resulting in a surviving child for several months after receiving that kind of diagnosis. Obviously, if she *wants* to continue the pregnancy, because she hopes for a miracle, that's another story.


>For a woman who's life is in danger, how do they know she will >absolutely die?

There are cases when a woman will most probably die. A woman with a peripartum cardiomyopathy who gets pregnant again (and continues it) has a mortality rate that approaches 100%. Perhaps 99%, perhaps 99.5%. I saw a patient, an infertility patient, who finally became pregnant and the same month was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Delaying her treatment for 8 months would have resulted in an extremely high risk that she would die of her disease in that year. Another patient diagnosed with breast cancer in her 7th month of pregnancy was induced early (maybe at 36 weeks) so she could start treatment. As you know, if someone is near viability, delivery of a premature infant is done not abortion. A woman actively hemorrhaging pre-viability from a placenta previa, if other attempts to stabilize and transfuse her faster than she loses blood are not successful, and going into shock she will die.

The intense training of obstetrics and gynecology, experience with thousand of patients, extensive review of available literature, and the utilization of maternal-fetal medicine specialists for additioal help in diagnosis and management makes the diagnosis, management, expectations much more precise than what you describe.

So, how close to absolutely die is close enough? You and I probably have different definitions.


>IMO the only one who has such knowledge that could tell you with a >certainty that a baby would or would not live outside the womb, or >that a woman will absolutely die if she carries to term is God. I >feel this way because I know a family where this happened, the >pregnant woman was told she would die if she carried to term. She >refused to even discuss abortion and that woman is now a grandmother.

With all due respect, the example of one person from 20 years ago when diagnostics were significantly more primitive-- doesn't really balance the extent of knowledge we have now about medicine. Medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds even within the past 10 years.

>How is wanting to save the life of one tiny person so wrong? Also >remember I said "if abortions were illegal", when something is >illegal there usually is a punishment. Sterilization would be the >punishment for an illegal act.

Wanting to prevent abortions is not wrong. Enabling women to be able to choose to continue their pregnancies because of better resources is not wrong. I guess what I don't understand is this: we have the ability to reduce the deaths of tiny persons and big persons as well, and choosing not to because of the principle of making it illegal and punishing women for sex we don't approve of is more important to some people than saving as *many* lives as possible, I feel, in my view, is wrong. My goal is to save as many lives as possible.

You're right, you said "if abortion were illegal". Does that mean you are not working towards making it illegal and would support the options that prevent pregnancy, abortions, and prevents maternal and fetal deaths if that included keeping it legal?