I don't even know what to title this post.

Heather R

The long and short of it is that this girl couldn't terminate to receive treatment, and the hospital had to debate with the government whether treatment was allowed because chemo in and of itself might end the pregnancy.  She's getting the treatment, but it should never have been an issue whether she was allowed a right to life.  As it stands, chemo's effects on a developing fetus will be heinous.  I can't stop being hacked off at this story. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

(CNN) -- A pregnant leukemia patient, whose life was at risk because anti-abortion laws in the Dominican Republic prevented doctors from treating her, has started receiving chemotherapy, officials said Thursday.

The 16-year-old started chemotherapy treatment in the country's capital late Tuesday night, hospital officials said.

The patient, whose identity has not been released because she's a minor and because of the hospital's privacy policy, is 10 weeks pregnant.

Doctors were hesitant to give her chemotherapy because such treatment could terminate the pregnancy -- a violation of the Dominican Constitution, which bans abortion.

Dr. Antonio Cabrera, legal representative for the Medical Center for Teachers (known by its Spanish acronym SEMMA) confirmed the news Thursday.

"The patient is receiving chemotherapy," Cabrera said. "And the hospital is following the appropriate medical protocol in this case."

Doctors at SEMMA started evaluating the teen for chemotherapy last week, pending an official decision on whether they could proceed with the treatment.

Representatives from the Dominican Ministry of Health, the Dominican Medical College, the hospital and the girl's family talked for several days about how to proceed. A decision was made early this week, Cabrera said.

"She's a very special patient," Cabrera said. "She's a minor, she suffers from leukemia and is 10 weeks pregnant. All three factors were considered in making the decision to proceed with the chemotherapy treatment."

Dr. Amarilis Herrera, president of the Dominican Medical College, said that she and representatives from her institution met with doctors at the hospital on July 18 to evaluate the case and work together to find a solution.

In a statement, Herrera said that "bone marrow tests were sent for analysis to the United States (in order to find) the best therapeutic treatment." Both the college and the Ministry of Health favored proceeding with the treatment.

The case has sparked renewed debate over abortion in the Dominican Republic, with some lawmakers calling on officials to reconsider the abortion ban.

Earlier this week, Rosa Hernandez, the girl's mother, said she had been trying to convince doctors and the Dominican government to make an exception so that her daughter's life could be saved.

"My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said.

According to Article 37 of the Dominican Constitution, "the right to life is inviolable from the moment of conception and until death." Dominican courts have interpreted this as a strict mandate against abortion. Article 37, passed in 2009, also abolished the death penalty.

Cabrera, the hospital?s legal representative and also a doctor, said doctors will monitor the condition of the girl and the fetus constantly during the chemotherapy treatment.

"We're clinging to science and God," Cabrera said.

 

FrickandFrack

That is just ridiculous.

Kitiara5512

FFS. What about her right to life? What if she dies or the disease progresses to where chemo would no longer do jack shiit? Sentence her to a slow, long, agonizing death so that their laws can be upheld, and the baby dies anyway?

Heather R

Kitiara5512:

FFS. What about her right to life? What if she dies or the disease progresses to where chemo would no longer do jack shiit? Sentence her to a slow, long, agonizing death so that their laws can be upheld, and the baby dies anyway?

but the unborn, though. 

 

 

JumpingJudahBean

I wonder what the consequences will be if the fetus ends up dying. This is ridiculous, good to know we aren't the only nation that values the fetus more than the child.

Heather R

JumpingJudahBean:

I wonder what the consequences will be if the fetus ends up dying. This is ridiculous, good to know we aren't the only nation that values the fetus more than the child.

that's one of the worst, nastiest little ironies-- she's a child herself.

 

ali_bl-nov05

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

JumpingJudahBean

Heather R:

JumpingJudahBean:

I wonder what the consequences will be if the fetus ends up dying. This is ridiculous, good to know we aren't the only nation that values the fetus more than the child.

that's one of the worst, nastiest little ironies-- she's a child herself.

 

I cannot even begin to fathom the fear she is experiencing. This would be hard enough on an adult.

Venus04d

That breaks my heart. 

Disgusting. 

judahsmommy1

I saw this yesterday. So sad and frustrating. This CAN'T be the first time they've faced a situation like this. What has happened to all the other patients?

kllrbnny

For the most part I am against abortion, however in cases such as this it just seems so clear to me that the right thing to do is terminate the pregnancy and save that poor girl's life! I find it appaling that they think it is better to risk harm to the baby...as if having cancer isn't bad enough, and as if losing that baby wouldn't have hurt tremendously...if the baby survives the mother's chemo who knows what the mother will then have to contend with on top of everything else.

This is one of those cases that proves that nothing is black & white.

violaplayer

I shouldn't have read that. It just makes me angry.

I just want to be sure I understand this ....

 

She's pregnant.

But the babeh!

She's going to end up dead without treatment.

But the bebeh!

So either bebeh dies with momma or ends up alive without a momma and potentially with birth defects.

But the bebeh!

 

Okay, I think I got it now. 

 

RedWingsFan

ali_bl-nov05:

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

How is this being pushed by "pro-choice agenda"?  And what agenda are they trying  to push, really?  Keeping a teenage girl alive?  I don't see the agenda in that, sorry. 

ali_bl-nov05

Did you guys even read my post?

ETA; At this point, it is unclear wether or not "Esperanza" wanted a termination. So there are a lot of assumptions being thrown around.

Second, yes, they could have terminate it, had she decided she wanted it (which again, is not known). Therapeutical terminations are performed when needed. Not a single doctor has been prosecuted.

Third: They could have provided treatment, and should have provided it, from day 1.

Heather R

ali_bl-nov05:

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

Of course you would think that. Of course you would rather than admit this is bullshits. The Constitutional clause is 3 years old. How many times has such a case come up, ali? How many precedents are there to say "never in the history"? And those "morons" want to save her life. Glad to know people fighting for her life are morons. You are unspeakably gross.

Ben Dover

ali_bl-nov05:

Did you guys even read my post?

I did, but I didn't get what you were trying to say.

Heather R

I have to go shopping, so someone else please flame ali on behalf of the "pro choice agenda."

JumpingJudahBean

ali_bl-nov05:

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

 

Where did you get this information? Because every article on the subject of medical abortion in the DR that I have read says otherwise. From what I could gather, the mother could be imprisoned anywhere from 6 months to 2 years, no matter the reason for the abortion. 

Sounds like someone has an agenda, but I don't think its the author/publisher of this article. 

ali_bl-nov05

Heather R:

ali_bl-nov05:

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

Of course you would think that. Of course you would rather than admit this is bullshits. The Constitutional clause is 3 years old. How many times has such a case come up, ali? How many precedents are there to say "never in the history"? And those "morons" want to save her life. Glad to know people fighting for her life are morons. You are unspeakably gross.

Abortion has been in the penal code since 1884. The constitutional clause, as you say, is only 3 years old.

JumpingJudahBean

ali_bl-nov05:

Heather R:

ali_bl-nov05:

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

Of course you would think that. Of course you would rather than admit this is bullshits. The Constitutional clause is 3 years old. How many times has such a case come up, ali? How many precedents are there to say "never in the history"? And those "morons" want to save her life. Glad to know people fighting for her life are morons. You are unspeakably gross.

Abortion has been in the penal code since 1884. The constitutional clause, as you say, is only 3 years old.

Yeah, the clause making the right to life inviolable from the moment of conception up until death is only three years old, making the rest of the penal code that says anything other than that irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Is it just me, or does what your saying make little sense? 

Ben Dover

IrishCoffee7:

I read it to mean that this girl's crappy situation was being "used" to push an "agenda".  Because that's somehow invalid.

When in reality it appears to me to be a very legitimate reason to push for change in the laws.

And also that it was ok for her to have to just proceed with chemo while pregnant and that there's nothing wrong with a law that allows this to happen.

And that just because no one has been prosecuted, it somehow means that they can't or the law is ok.

Did I miss something?

Looks like TB is eating posts again.

This is how I read it, but I was just trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe she was either mistaken or misunderstood, and I was looking for her to clarify if that was the case.

ali_bl-nov05

Jumping, read what I bolded on Heather's post. That's the relevance of what I'm saying.

Kitiara5512

IrishCoffee7:

ali_bl-nov05:

Honestly, that case is being used to push the pro-choice agenda. Her right to receive treatment is not undermined by the current laws. She could have and should have receive the treatment from day 1. If she didn't blame it on moron doctors.

No doctor has been ever prosecuted in the history of Dominican Republic for therapeutical abortions, they are perfomed every frigging day . That is not even the case here, they'll be providing a treatmant that could, and will most likely result in miscarriage, that could never result in legal trouble.

I don't doubt that the docs received pressure from the catholic church, though.

WTAF.

Are you kidding me?

 If the pro-choice agenda is that the life of a 16yo should have to come before that of her fetus, and that she shouldn't be faced with the disgusting prospect of undergoing chemo while pregnant knowing the damage it is doing to her fetus, plus having no control over if, when, or how her MC takes place...then yeah, I'm all for the pro-choice "agenda".

JFC.

 

This.

"My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said.

Sounds like the parent did authorize the abortion to save her daughter.

JumpingJudahBean

ali_bl-nov05:

Jumping, read what I bolded on Heather's post. That's the relevance of what I'm saying.

I am still failing to see the relevance. Heather asked a question, which you clearly cannot answer. With out the answers to Heather's questions, I don't feel anything you're saying is based in fact, or relevant. 

ali_bl-nov05

JumpingJudahBean:

ali_bl-nov05:

Jumping, read what I bolded on Heather's post. That's the relevance of what I'm saying.

I am still failing to see the relevance. Heather asked a question, which you clearly cannot answer. With out the answers to Heather's questions, I don't feel anything you're saying is based in fact, or relevant. 

Heather implied that there's no jurisprudence because the issue is new. I'm saying that it is not, becasuse abortion has been considered illegal since 1884. Do you think that this situation  has not come up once since then? 

MJHershey

Apparently a 10 week old fetus is more important than a 16 year old girl.

JumpingJudahBean

ali_bl-nov05:

JumpingJudahBean:

ali_bl-nov05:

Jumping, read what I bolded on Heather's post. That's the relevance of what I'm saying.

I am still failing to see the relevance. Heather asked a question, which you clearly cannot answer. With out the answers to Heather's questions, I don't feel anything you're saying is based in fact, or relevant. 

Heather implied that there's no jurisprudence because the issue is new. I'm saying that it is not, becasuse abortion has been considered illegal since 1884. Do you think that this situation  has not come up once since then? 

But it wasn't illegal across the board until 2009. The amendment made it so. 

Ben Dover

Ali, are you defending the DR abortion policy? Or are we all misunderstanding you?

ETA: Also, do you have me blocked, or is there some other reason you've avoided my questions/comments?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Ben Dover

SookieFrackhouse68:

It would seem logic has failed these people.

Dude, I think she blocked me.

[Deleted User]

Ben Dover:

SookieFrackhouse68:

It would seem logic has failed these people.

Dude, I think she blocked me.

Maybe she's allergic to tomatoes?  Achoo.

Kitiara5512

Ben Dover:

Ali, are you defending the DR abortion policy? Or are we all misunderstanding you?

ETA: Also, do you have me blocked, or is there some other reason you've avoided my questions/comments?

I would never block you.

Ben Dover

::wonders what exactly Kitiara and sofa mean::

[Deleted User]

Ben Dover:

::wonders what exactly Kitiara and sofa mean::

You know what makes a joke really funny?  Having to explain it. 

OK, so I said maybe she's allergic to tomatoes.  Your avatar is a tomato.  It's a JOKE.  Now a super duper lame one because I've had to explain it.  Ugh! 

mammcg88

Venus04d:

That breaks my heart. 

Disgusting. 

I totally agree. 

Ben Dover

sofamonkey:

You know what makes a joke really funny?  Having to explain it. 

OK, so I said maybe she's allergic to tomatoes.  Your avatar is a tomato.  It's a JOKE.  Now a super duper lame one because I've had to explain it.  Ugh! 

No, I got that part, but I wondered whether the "Achoo" was supposed to mean something and then Kitiara was all "you."

I'm just a little sensitive about my new identity.

Kitiara5512

Ben Dover:

::wonders what exactly Kitiara and sofa mean::

I quoted you so that if she does have you blocked she could see you.

And then I said that I would never block you. (I dont block people for annoying or disagreeing with me, only for nasty pics). Maybe I should be batting my eyelashes or sumshits.

Kitiara5512

Ben Dover:

sofamonkey:

You know what makes a joke really funny?  Having to explain it. 

OK, so I said maybe she's allergic to tomatoes.  Your avatar is a tomato.  It's a JOKE.  Now a super duper lame one because I've had to explain it.  Ugh! 

No, I got that part, but I wondered whether the "Achoo" was supposed to mean something and then Kitiara was all "you."

I'm just a little sensitive about my new identity.

I dont know who you are (the kewl kids wont tell me, wah!) but that you are okay and not one of the sicko perv AEs.

[Deleted User]

Ben Dover:

sofamonkey:

You know what makes a joke really funny?  Having to explain it. 

OK, so I said maybe she's allergic to tomatoes.  Your avatar is a tomato.  It's a JOKE.  Now a super duper lame one because I've had to explain it.  Ugh! 

No, I got that part, but I wondered whether the "Achoo" was supposed to mean something and then Kitiara was all "you."

I'm just a little sensitive about my new identity.

Oh, FFS. YOU ARE RUINING MY JOKE!!!1!1!!1!!! Achoo - sneeze. Sneeze - allergic to something. Really, I am thisclose to blocking you myself now. Or making a tomato sandwich with Duke's mayonaise, and a light dusting of fresh ground pepper. (OK, so I was joking about that too, you overripe tomato.) You really ARE sensitive.

LovesMM

sofamonkey:

Ben Dover:

sofamonkey:

You know what makes a joke really funny?  Having to explain it. 

OK, so I said maybe she's allergic to tomatoes.  Your avatar is a tomato.  It's a JOKE.  Now a super duper lame one because I've had to explain it.  Ugh! 

No, I got that part, but I wondered whether the "Achoo" was supposed to mean something and then Kitiara was all "you."

I'm just a little sensitive about my new identity.

Oh, FFS. YOU ARE RUINING MY JOKE!!!1!1!!1!!! Achoo - sneeze. Sneeze - allergic to something. Really, I am thisclose to blocking you myself now. Or making a tomato sandwich with Duke's mayonaise, and a light dusting of fresh ground pepper. (OK, so I was joking about that too, you overripe tomato.) You really ARE sensitive.

/dead

 

 

ali_bl-nov05

JumpingJudahBean:

ali_bl-nov05:

JumpingJudahBean:

ali_bl-nov05:

Jumping, read what I bolded on Heather's post. That's the relevance of what I'm saying.

I am still failing to see the relevance. Heather asked a question, which you clearly cannot answer. With out the answers to Heather's questions, I don't feel anything you're saying is based in fact, or relevant. 

Heather implied that there's no jurisprudence because the issue is new. I'm saying that it is not, becasuse abortion has been considered illegal since 1884. Do you think that this situation  has not come up once since then? 

But it wasn't illegal across the board until 2009. The amendment made it so. 

I suppose you mean that it was not illegal in all cases?  It was consider illegal since there's a penal code. Obviously the constitution is above the law, if that's what you mean.

The constitution states (in it's article 37);

Art?culo 37.- Right to life.The right to life is inviolable from conception to death. Death penaltyIt can't be stablished, pronounced or applied, in any case, . (translation is mine)

My thesis which is that therapeutical abortion can be consider and included within the right to self defense.

Look, it is clear that this situation is crappy all around. What I'm saying here is that the doctors didn't have to hold back the treatment (they are provinding it now). I urge to follow up this case for any legal repercussion against them and see that there won't be any.

Yes, a pro-choice agenda is being pushed here, and they are using a case that does not apply. They want a change (their prerrogative) saying "Oh no, this kid didn't get treatment because of the constitution" when in reality that's not true. It's mere sensasionalism.