Posted on 12/13/2005 7:49:21 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
A mother who found out she had cancer after becoming pregnant sacrificed her life for her unborn baby by refusing an abortion and chemotherapy, a British newspaper reported.
Devout Catholic Bernadette Mimura, known as Milai, shunned the potentially life-saving treatment because doctors told her it would kill the child, the Northern Echo regional daily reported Friday.
The 37-year-old, a native of the Philippines who lived near Stockton-on-Tees in northeast England with her British partner, Adam Taylor, survived long enough to see the birth of their son, Nathan.
But soon after seeing him baptized, she was transferred to a hospice and died about a week later.
"Being a Catholic, for her abortion was out of the question," Mr. Taylor told the newspaper. "It was a tough decision, but the decision was we could not give up on Nathan."
The boy, now 4 months old, was premature but was born fit and healthy.
Father Alan Sheridan, who performed the baptism, told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency: "Bernadette said the most important thing was the birth of her baby and she would not do anything to harm him.
"Having an abortion was never a consideration. I know she talked it over with Adam and because she was a Catholic, there was no way she would have done it.
"She had to judge which life was more important and she just prayed there would be a cure for cancer." Father Sheridan is spearheading an appeal to raise $6,490 to repatriate Mrs. Mimura's body to the Philippines for burial. Money left over will help her other three children from a first marriage.
The priest said he hoped the Manila government would help with a grant to fly the three youngsters from Britain for the ceremony.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I certainly wouldn't, especially since I have children. I pray that I am never in that situation, as I am sure it would be unbearable to make. I can't imagine having to choose saying goodbye to the children I have while dying to try to save the life of one that is unyet unborn. This woman made a very noble decision, and one that cannot be judged even if you have been in that exact situation. IMO I just can't even imagine it...so heartbreaking, any way you look at it.
It's possible that was someone else's description, definitely.
"The priest was mistaken. Although it may be morally licit for a pregnant woman to undergo chemo -- even though the chemo could kill the baby along with the cancer -- it would never be acceptable for the woman to directly abort the child."
ok, i see your point. let me clarify what he was talking about , as i just remembered some details. I think you're correct, his example included something like uteran cancer, where the baby is directly in the way of treatment. so the dilemma becomes do you treat the cancer or do you save the baby.
In your example, it is possible to do both, and if the baby dies then its a byproduct of the treatment? in the case of uteran cancer, the baby would have to be removed in order to get at the cancer, to say, remove it surgically.
That is probably closer to what he said. apologies, i cant rebmember exactly.
thoughts?
This is the rare situation in which I make exception for my pro-life stance. Fortunately such situations are extremely rare. I really don't know what I would do if faced with the same situation.
If the cancer is early stage, surgery may be a good option and can be performed during pregnancy. Even if the cancer is more advanced, there are chemotherapy protocols that appear to be safe when done after the first trimester. However many doctors will not provide such life-prolonging or saving treatment unless the woman aborts, due to their claim that it will cause birth defects. The limited studies performed to date indicate that this is not accurate.
Termination of the pregnancy in order to treat breast cancer does not improve the mother's prognosis. Still, it would be a horrid decision to have to make; save yourself (maybe) or save your child (maybe). If there are other small children in the picture, it becomes even more difficult to decide.
Don't forget that the cancer can spread to the baby. That is another factor in this moral dilemma.
It is my understanding that the Church allows termination of a pregnancy if (and only if) it is a choice between saving the mother or the child. It takes a very courageous woman to make this choice, and I'm sure God has a special place in heaven reserved for her.
The pro-aborts always point out this type of abortion to justify the legal abortions, but this is extremely rare, probably less than .00001% of all abortions.
Oh I think the child would know just how much his mother loved him to sacrifice her life for his. I don't see any problems there at all.
on the contrary...he will know of true mother's love. I think this child will be a strong child like his mother was.
That's a nice way to look at it... it's just not the way the human psyche works.
I will probably, in turn, get flamed for this, but I think that if I were a child, I would rather grow up with the knowledge that my mother laid down her life for one of my siblings, rather than killing that sibling in order to be with me. I'm not judging anyone who would choose otherwise, but I would feel, as the child who kept her mother at the expense of a sibling, that our bond had been tainted. Just my $.02
As for the principle of double effect, it is important to note that the death of the baby to save the mother must not be caused by direct action upon the baby. A standard D&C, suction, D&E, or partial-birth abortion is not acceptable in these cases. Just as an ectopic pregnancy may be terminated is the child is not directly harmed (by removing the part of the tube that contains the baby), an "abortion" of a child whose mother would die without treatment that would kill him or her must involve an intact delivery via induced labor or c-section.
God bless this woman for doing the right thing.
I should have added that "double effect" terminations are not condoned by the Church, which encourages self-giving love and protection of innocent life, but that these particular cases have a different moral status than direct abortion to save the life of the mother or any form of abortion that would not save the mother's life.
The Catholic church teaches that direct, deliberate abortion (intended to kill the child) is to be judged the same as any other deliberate killing of a human being, that is, it is wrong whether as a means to an end, or as an end in itself.
The baby's life is considered equal in value to the mother's life (or the father's, or the Queen of England's for that matter): neither more nor less.
Since the doctor has an equal obligation to save the mother and the baby, if the baby is save-able at all, then he has to try to save both.
That's not always possible, but it has to be the intention.
The most common solution is to try to deliver the baby prematurely, as early as possible, consistent with its survival, and then treat the mother's cancer as aggressively as you have to with radiation, chemo, surgery or whatever.
In rare circumstances (tubal pregnancy, but other cases as well) --- especially if the situation is such that the baby won't survive no matter what you do--- you can surgically remove the mother's pregnant but diseased organ (fallopian tube, uterus or whatever) and bring about what is called a "double effect": the baby perishes, but it was perishing in its mother anyway, so it is not considered "killing" the baby if you act to save the mother in this way.
I hope I have not made this seem too complicated. The principle is simple. (1) You try to save both. (2) If is is strictly not possible to save both,then you do what you need to do to save the one you can.
You may be referring to St. Gianna Beretta Molla (died 1962), who was canonized a saint in 2004. To see her beautiful website --- really beautiful ---- go to:
http://www.saintgianna.org/
However, I see the responsibility toward already born, living children as being more important than responsibility toward a child who has not been born yet. This is MO and I will stick with it. Have a nice day.:)
Even martyr who is burnt at the stake rather than renounce the Faith, is canonized "just" for "doing the right thing."
She lived a life a exemplary virtue, and she laid down her life for her child. If that's not "blessed," I don't know what is.
Maybe for mothers, as for Marines, "Uncommon valor is the common virtue."
Should? I have respect for women who give their lives to bear their babies. It is a difficult choice. But, for me, I would choose to stay and be mother to the children I have already birthed.
"Maybe for mothers, as for Marines, 'Uncommon valor is the common virtue.'"
The line of the day. Great post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.