A wife has sickle cell lung cancer (one of the worst kinds of cancer) but she's pregnant. She needs to get radiation treatment if she's going to have any chance of survival but she needs to get a C-section in order to not harm her baby. The baby, however, is only 28 weeks (premature). Its chance for survival is 80%. Now keep in mind that she has had 3 miscarriages before. Her desire and decision is to hold off one week to at least 29 weeks so that the baby will have up to 90% chance survival. However, if she waits one week, then she'll have 1/3 less of a chance to live. She wants to protect her baby so she sticks with her decision.
All of a sudden she gets a blood clot in her artery and needs to go through an immediate procedure in order to get it out. However, the drug that will be inserted in her body is harmful to the child. Because the mother is unconscious, the father makes a decision to put his wife's life priority over his child's.
The doctors get the clot out, but then she starts to go into respiratory arrest and her abdomen is bleeding internally. The baby needs to come out if it's going to survive. But because of her current condition, if a C-section is performed, she will most likely die. The father has a huge decision to make: either save his wife who has hardly no chance of living, or give permission fo r the C-section to save his baby.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!
5 comments:
You have to look at the pros and cons; short-term and long-term. These kinds of decision comes with loss regardless, so he should choose wisely and diligently.
This is my reasoning:
He can save the baby (which is 'saving' a life and choose to 'not save' his wife's life. In doing so, he loses the love of his life and becomes a single parent. In addition to that, the baby could possibly be born with health issues and possibly have sickle cell as well, and lose the baby, if not soon, maybe later. Then he'll be alone and have to start from scratch finding a new spouse. I say that he saves his wife because you wouldn't want to bring him into the world and see him suffer (because he is premature and have to be on support for a lone time before he's stable). The mother may be upset and hate the father for a long time, but she shouldn't. She should be thankful that in the future, they can raise a child together and watch him grow. Parenting is a dual job, and it's best that the child has both parents; rather than one (or step-parents).
Just a thought.
Anonymous again. Tsk.
Anywho, I'd get the baby. If I save the wife, then she would never be the same again. And in a sense, you'd be saving someone that is not really your wife. Her mentality and view of everything including you, would be damaged and different. I don't want my wife to be like that.
I don't want to save someone who is not my wife. She might look like my wife, act like my wife, and even smell like my wife, but she would be a different human being. If you don't understand, then I guess I'm just on another level. You need to catch up. HARHARHAR.
Same state of mind or not, if you see it that way, then I feel sorry for you. You should love your wife regardless of her mental state. Different human being? You might as well not even save either and let them both die. At least one will be better than none. But let me guess Richard Chungo, you don't have a significant other to really understand love and the loneliness it brings if you're left alone, or you're just ignorant and sees people as 'if they are not normal, they're not worth my time.' Deny all you want; you don't understand love enough to even see pass that. You're just a child who thinks he knows everything. It will be tramatizing losing the child, but people are able to move one with God. I've seen it happen plenty of times. Don't act like this doesn't happen.
I don't understand what you mean. So you think picking the child over the woman would be having less of a heart? If one picked the baby, the baby would have a greater chance to live given all the statistics she put up versus the mother.
and I understand what you are saying how it would be more practical to raise a child later on with both parents. However, given her later mental condition probably because of the abortion or death of her child(s)((she had 3 miscarriages},she would be distant and disconnected. It would end up being just like taking care of a child on his own.
Either way- it involves sacrifice and love,whether you pick the baby or mother. so I think it's a bit harsh for you to say that Richard has no love and is quite ignorant of the concept of love.
If I was the mother- I would want my child to live rather than me, especially because he/she would have way more time on earth to live.
and isn't that the greatest sacrifice of all?
and like you said- people are able to move with God given whatever the outcome happens to be.
...and isn't that the greatest sacrifice of all?
That is the greatest sacrifice, but I'm speaking from a realistic point of view; not the stereotypical view that every thinks they should believe. There was once a time I thought your opinion was correct, but to leave my significant other alone, I couldn't and would NOT do. It's more heartbreaking to know that s/he will be alone. I understand, psychologically, the wife will be affected and it happens.
I do believe that many think this decision is selfish and unthinkable, but it's just my opinion. The ignorance of love part; read it from a neutral perspective rather than reading it from a friend perspective:
I don't want to save someone who is not my wife. She might look like my wife, act like my wife, and even smell like my wife, but she would be a different human being.
Regardless of a change in psychological thought, love should be there. To me that shows ignorance; the fact that someone who changes suddenly becomes "not my wife." Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post a Comment