Do you think RE's have a moral responsiblility?

Nikki818 · October 2011

I don't want to start any type of flames or huge drama but I'm curious what others think.

All I can think of is Meghans triplets....I wake up in the middle of the night thinking about them wanting their mommy. It breaks my heart. I guess I'm especially emotional about it b/c I lost my mom at 2 and my dad at 17. I've been an "orphan" for a looong time.

Anyway, I read her entire cancer blog last night. I just assumed she was in remission when she got pg but she never was. It seems as though she was battling one tumor or another from the moment she was diagnosed. Somewhere in between she did IVF.

Now I know when a woman wants to be a mom that nothing can stop her. That's just how it is....but I think the RE who helped her should have some moral responsibility in not allowing someone who is in the midst of battleing cancer try to concieve. Not only for the mom's health but also for the future children becoming motherless! I can understand going through the cycle to freeze embies for future use, once the cancer is in remission and the chemo is over but to allow a xfer while the mom is not in remission?

I guess I just feel like RE's only care about the $$, anymore. They don't care about what will happen afterwards. My heart just hurts for those three babies...and her husband, of course.

What are your thoughts?

CBL · October 2011

Honestly if the basic tenant of hippocractic oath is to first do no harm, then they not only have a moral obligation, but a legal one.

I don't know the circumstances and details surrounding timing and don't care to pick apart this case, but I do believe it is contrary to a doctor's legal obligation to perform IVF on a patient who has current, active cancer if that patient should have otherwise spent the time frame of her pregnancy being treated for cancer. If the pregnancy stalled treatment and caused a patient's condition to worsen, then assisting her to become pregnant did indeed cause harm.

That's my opinion based on my career in a regulatory body. As a mom and infertile, it's hard to have cut and dry opinions about this.

OrangeSmoke · October 2011

Why did you need to ask this under an AE?

And seriously... way to stir the pot.

Nikki818 · October 2011

Actually, I accidently put this under my AE that I'm using for donor egg questions! Embarrassed

I didn't realize I hadn't signed out until I read what your wrote!! I can't give my real screen name now...sorry.

I'm not trying to stir the pot. I just am really upset about the situation. I just think the RE should set up some sort of fund or something for the babies that he helped bring in this world. I feel like he does have a responsibility to be sure the mother is in optimal health for the childrens sake.

Like I said, a woman wants to be a mom under any circumstances. I KNOW THAT! So, by no means am I implying fault on anyone. I know I would have done anything, as well.

I just sick of RE's not having any responsibility....octomom, Kate Gosselin, 60 yr old moms...etc.

hopecounts · October 2011

I think it depends on a lot of unique details. Did she know she'd have a minimal chance of surviving? If so did she and her husband discuss it and feel like her having a child(ren) would leave some part of her living after her death?

I don't think you can judge this situation and make a hard and fast rule. Especially if you haven't been in those shoes. Is it incredibly sad that these children have lost their mom, extremely but the other option is not having them and through them her around now. I do think it's different if it affected the outcome of her battle (i.e. if she hadn't taken that time she could've reasonably beaten it) but even then I don't think anyone has a right to judge how she and her husband choose to handle that situation.

Maybe having those babies around is a comfort to her husband and family. Children bring such joy to those around them. I know my cousin is/was a great comfort to my grandparents through the years after they lost my uncle.

WhiteysWifey · October 2011

My thoughts are that if they didn't have to deal with infertility what would've stopped them from having children, nothing, no one would have dictated the morality of having children.

I know, that if either my husband or I were at a risk of passing away (cancer etc) then we would have pushed ahead with having kids. As a mom to DI kids, the hardest thing for me is knowing my husband could die before me, and at that point he's gone....yes our kids may have his mannerisms, etc, but genetically he will be gone. Just that idea is very, very hard....so I completely understand their decision to pursue children (I can't pretend to know whether they knew how terminal the cancer was and that was their thought too).

I really don't see much of a difference, than husbands (or wives) who bank sperm (eggs) prior to being deployed or in some other circumstance that may result in their death, so that the spouse would be able to have a child.

Honestly, who has the right to determine whether someone else should have children (obviously there are some conditions that fall outside of that).

RoxBride · October 2011

Nikki818:

Actually, I accidently put this under my AE that I'm using for donor egg questions!

I didn't realize I hadn't signed out until I read what your wrote!! I can't give my real screen name now...sorry.

I'm not trying to stir the pot. I just am really upset about the situation. I just think the RE should set up some sort of fund or something for the babies that he helped bring in this world. I feel like he does have a responsibility to be sure the mother is in optimal health for the childrens sake.

Like I said, a woman wants to be a mom under any circumstances. I KNOW THAT! So, by no means am I implying fault on anyone. I know I would have done anything, as well.

I just sick of RE's not having any responsibility....octomom, Kate Gosselin, 60 yr old moms...etc.

Umm, so optimal health?

As in, if a Mom is a bit overweight, no IF treatments. If Dad once smoked, no IF treatments. Ever had treatment for mental illness? No IF treatments.

Doctors should not have decision making capabilities in who they choose to help and who they don't.

They have a responsibility to put all the information out there, every last bit, to let patients make their own decisions. Aside from cases of severe, current mental illness when a patient cannot think straight, it isn't their place to decide who to treat and who to not treat.

firsttogo · October 2011

I agree that there is a lot that we do not know here, and to speculate, is taking a big jump. I would like to think that MOST RE's are not solely in this for the money, and do like helping people build families. They work EVERY day of the week, Holidays, Weekends, ect. Yes there are some on the news but the reason they are on the news is because the case is unusual and unique. Also, many of the HOM cases we know about (besides octo-) are a little older, when maybe treatment plans were not the best.

This question is interesting, but maybe the timing is insensitive especially on our board.

ALY1981 · October 2011

I do not think her RE should hold any responsibility. I, myself, am a motherless daughter. My mother struggled with severe complications of juvenile diabetes and was sick my entire life until she passed away when I was 16. She was told not to have me, but she chose to ignore doctors requests. Though their time on earth with their mother was short, it's not insignificant. She created three beautiful lives. Meghan may be gone, but she gave those beautiful children life. They will now life on in her legacy and be a constant reminder to her family what a wonderful person I'm sure she was.

kthappy76 · October 2011

Hypothetically, I think it is ultimately up to the couple (w/their families, if appropriate) to decide what is best for them, just like it is for people who don't need help to conceive. I don't see how an RE can possibly be expected to make this decision for them, since the RE's involvement in their life is quite limited, though they do have the job of educating them on the risks of cycling. I think they do possibly have the right to refuse treatment and have them go elsewhere if they are don't want to be a part of that particular patient's treatment.

The exception to this are situations like the Octomom when it is clearly never responsible to transfer 6 or 8 or however many embryos she had transferred at once. That is just flat out malpractice IMO.

Sadly, I know several couples where one parent was left to raise their young kids after their spouse's untimely passing, and nearly all of them never step foot before an RE. It's natural to look for a scapegoat when something tragic happens, but the RE isn't it. They aren't responsible for any of the children they help to create. That's life.

PrincessShay80 · October 2011

At first I thought she had been disgnosed after getting pregnant, but I see that is not the case.

I think it's the doctors responsibility to ask questions- if the parents involved are okay with the decision to move forward then it's not the doctors responsibility to tell them they can't. We don't know the conversations that went on behind closed doors between husband and wife.

sliz · October 2011

This is a slippery slope. I think RE's do need to be responsible to a minimal extent in controlling the number of embryos transferred and that babies aren't born to active substance abusers or welfare moms but other than that no. It is the mom's, dad's and family's decision. Are you going to enforce birth control on cancer patients? Or would you have RE's refuse to assist the conception of children belonging to parents that are active duty military or work other dangerous jobs? What's to say I won't get hit by a bus tomorrow and leave my child an orphan? I feel terrible for the babies losing their mom but they have a family that loves them and that matters most.

roselln2 · October 2011

Curious about the comment re: Kate Gosselin's doctor. Octomom's doctor was clearly irresponsible in his decision to buckle to her demands to transfer so many embryos; however, my understanding of the Gosselin situation is that she had too many follicles for an IUI, therefore, her doctor cancelled the cycle and told them to abstain. In that case it wasn't a case of an irresponsible doctor but rather an irresponsible patient.

kthappy76 · October 2011

roselln2:
Curious about the comment re: Kate Gosselin's doctor. Octomom's doctor was clearly irresponsible in his decision to buckle to her demands to transfer so many embryos; however, my understanding of the Gosselin situation is that she had too many follicles for an IUI, therefore, her doctor cancelled the cycle and told them to abstain. In that case it wasn't a case of an irresponsible doctor but rather an irresponsible patient.

Exactly. Irresponsible patients make RE's look bad all the time, and they have no recourse. Also, I know of so many people who have strong armed their REs into transferring more than the recommended # of embies because they thought they deserved to be an exception to the rules put in place to protect them and their children.

MyShellyBelly · October 2011

ALY1981:
I do not think her RE should hold any responsibility. I, myself, am a motherless daughter. My mother struggled with severe complications of juvenile diabetes and was sick my entire life until she passed away when I was 16. She was told not to have me, but she chose to ignore doctors requests. Though their time on earth with their mother was short, it's not insignificant. She created three beautiful lives. Meghan may be gone, but she gave those beautiful children life. They will now life on in her legacy and be a constant reminder to her family what a wonderful person I'm sure she was.

This is just so well said.

I can't help but think of Julia Robert's character on Steel Magnolias when she said, "I would rather have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special."

I will not place any judgement on Meghan, her DH or the RE for the choices that they made because I have never been faced with such tough decisions and I do not know what I would do if I were in their shoes.

The triplets are living proof of how some women will go to any lengths to have children and I only hope someday they will understand what their mother did for them.

Like Aly said, Meghan may be gone, but those triplets will live on in her legacy.

hantzwedding · October 2011

This is crazy. Being a mom changes your life. It brings a happiness that nothing else may be able to bring and gives your live new purpose. Why should someone be denied that just because they are sick? Even if you only got to feel that way for a short time, it is worth it! Anyone can die anytime. I don't think I would ever not do something I wanted to do, especially something like try to have kids, just because there is a chance I could die soon. The number of children living with one parent out there is huge and most of them are fine. Who's to say the dad or mom or whoever is the surviving parent in a situation like this doesn't remarry an increadible person eventually and the kids still grow up with 2 parents (I think this is pretty likely). It just blows my mind that anyone would think that the kids shouldn't be here.

I don't feel the RE should have denied treatment. Those babies are loved by their family and I'm sure are going to grow up to be wonderful, contrbuting memebers of society.

MBandBud · October 2011

MyShellyBelly:
ALY1981:

I do not think her RE should hold any responsibility. Though their time on earth with their mother was short, it's not insignificant. She created three beautiful lives. Meghan may be gone, but she gave those beautiful children life. They will now life on in her legacy and be a constant reminder to her family what a wonderful person I'm sure she was.

This is just so well said.

I can't help but think of Julia Robert's character on Steel Magnolias when she said, "I would rather have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special."

I will not place any judgement on Meghan, her DH or the RE for the choices that they made because I have never been faced with such tough decisions and I do not know what I would do if I were in their shoes.

The triplets are living proof of how some women will go to any lengths to have children and I only hope someday they will understand what their mother did for them.

Like Aly said, Meghan may be gone, but those triplets will live on in her legacy.

All This. I see the point of the original post but at the end of the day, life happens and we roll...

ladychicago · October 2011

WhiteysWifey:
My thoughts are that if they didn't have to deal with infertility what would've stopped them from having children, nothing, no one would have dictated the morality of having children.

This was my first thought, too. While I strongly believe that REs have a moral responsibility, I think they are fairly limited relating to the health/viability of the potential pregnancy and the health/safety of the mother in carrying the potential pregnancy. This most obviously related to the risk of HOMs....and why I think REs like the one who treated Octomom ought to have their licenses revoked, if not worse.

without knowing all of the details...I have to believe an RE who moved forward with treatments on a woman dealing with cancer knew her medical history, discussed it with them in detail, and felt comfortable moving forward from the point of view of the health and safety of the pregnancy that would result. I also have to believe the oncologist was on board.

But I do not believe it is the RE's place to decide who is otherwise fit to become a parent. It is a VERY slippery slope. Life happens, parents die, get sick, get divorced, hit their kids (or worse), accidentally leave them in the car on a hot day, lose their jobs, become homeless...whether an RE was involved or not. Truth is, NONE of us are truly fit to become parents. Those kids have been and will continue to be loved more than anything in the world, and their RE holds no responsibility for what cancer stole from them.

JenCW · October 2011

The RE's primary role is to help people build families when they are not able to do so without medical intervention. That's what he did, and now Meghan's family has three beautiful children to carry on her legacy. Maybe for them the idea of not having children was far worse than the possibility that Meghan would lose her battle with cancer. With the exception of extreme malpractice, I don't believe an RE should undermine the decision of the couple.

For all of us, in one sense or another, we have children knowing that life is unpredictable and sometimes tragedy happens, but that in the end having a family is more than worth the "risk".

charmcitygirl · October 2011

I do not think it was the RE's responsibility to determine whether or not Meghan and her DH should be parents - it was their decision. Not knowing any of the details of the conversations between Meghan and her DH and their RE, I can only speculate that they made an educated decision.

Isn't it better to have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special?

choco_lab · October 2011

What about Giuliana Ranic's RE requiring that she get a mammogram before her IVF?

"Before undergoing the IVF procedure, the physician insisted that the 36-year-old undergo a mammogram. He said, 'I don't care if you're 26 or 36, but I will not get you pregnant if possibly there's a small risk that you have cancer because the hormones will accelerate the cancer. I never in my wildest dreams expected anything would be wrong."

Seems to be a similar predicament... was it out of line for him to suggest this knowing the outcome?

Dr.Loretta · October 2011

Coming from a fairly detached position (I never knew this person) I can see so many sides to this.

-The doctor has a moral/ethical responsibility to present all the risks and benefits of a treatment to a patient. From an ethical/legal standpoint, if the doctor has done so, regardless of how the patient proceeds, they have done what is required of them. We had a similar discussion about this in a bioethics class in college.

-Would I have risked my life as well as that of my unborn children going into IVF with active cancer? Hell no. But as seen from many of the responses here, there are a lot of people who would have. The drive to have biological children is amazingly strong in some people.

-There are people who get criticized for choosing to continue a pregnancy when they are diagnosed with cancer or some other disease during said pregnancy. Seems like a double standard to then turn around and say someone should start a pregnancy during treatment.

-We don't know what her prognosis was, and if she was able to have some sort of treatment during pregnancy. There was a recent news article that certain forms of cancer can be successfully treated with chemo that doesn't affect the fetus. Maybe this was the case here

-There are irresponsible REs out there. I've met more than my share. Was this one of them? Not enough details to say

-As many pps noted, maybe this couple discussed it and decided that they would rather have at least one child and only a single parent than to live whatever lifespan the wife had without any kids in their lives during that time. Or maybe they have a really big, close, supportive extended family who could step in, and they really wanted to provide grandchildren to their parents,. Who knows?

To be honest, I don't think there's a right answer here, and I think the couple would have been criticized by *someone* no matter what decision they made.

dulcinea03 · October 2011

This hits pretty close to home because this could be us, but with DH instead of me. DH is a cancer survivor, he is in remission now, but we know that his cancer could come back. As it was stage 3 before, he has a greater chance of it coming back. We knew this going into treatments, but after many looong talks between us, our families, and our RE, we moved forward with IVF and now have twin girls. So far DH's scans and bloodwork have come back negative, and we pray that it will continue. But even if his cancer does come back, and if heaven forbid he were to pass, the joy that fatherhood has brought him, the bond he has shared with his children, and the 2 beautiful girls he would leave me with, are all worth it.

Life has no guarantees, the only guarantee is that it will end. My heart aches for Meghan's DH and little boys because they have lost her. But I'm also very certain that with her condition they were very aware that this may happen. I'm also pretty certain that her RE had many discussions with her, and was very aware of her condition as she chose to freeze her eggs prior to starting cancer treatment. The RE's job is to help people have a family, not to play God and deem someone "too ill" to conceive. How much backlash would the RE get if they had made that decision for a couple? They'd be held to to fire for discrimination and making decisions for their patients.

nikinikinine · October 2011

To the OP, while Meghan did not ever *NOT* have cancer, she did cycle at one of the healthiest points in her time fighting the disease. To the best of my knowledge, her cancer got worse while she was pregnant and since she was pregnant they could not do anything to treat the tumors which had become increasingly aggressive.

Also, had it not been for her cancer she would not have been IF and using IVF to conceive. So ....

And I guess I point the question back at you in asking if she went into remission and her cancer was "cured" would you still feel like the RE had a moral responsibility to keep her from conceiving?

And where should a doctor draw the line? What about women who have fertility problems because they are athletes who overtrain, or because they are overweight? Does their lifestyle mean that they cannot or should not mother? What about those who are diabetic or have RA?

I guess that doesn't leave very many people who actually should be able to conceive with assistance then though...

miesl · October 2011

I think I'm just too angry to form a comment on a post that boils down to:

"But you know, no drama or flames that I've suggested that some people on SAIF shouldn't be parents."

GuitaristsGirl · October 2011

sliz:
I think RE's do need to be responsible to a minimal extent in controlling ... that babies aren't born to ... welfare moms but other than that no.

Im going to go one step further and disagree with this statement, too. REs should never be in the business of determining who is fit to be or deserves to be a parent. Their responsibility, IMO, is to create a pregnancy that can be healthy for mom and bab(ies), ie not HOM.

LVBlvd · October 2011

I agree with the people who said that the only thing certain about life is that it will end for all of us.

His responsibility was to inform her that, if she became pregnant, they might not be able to treat her cancer and she could die from this. I am quite certain that they had those conversations. I am sure that she and her husband discussed it and did what they felt was right.

I would never judge a couple who went ahead and wanted to get pregnant anyway.

Would DH and I make that same choice? I'm not sure. I'm thinking probably not, but of course, how would I know - I've never been faced with that.

My heart breaks for her family because they lost her. But how amazing that they have 3 precious souls to carry on her beautiful legacy?

And I agree with the poster who said that her RE would have faced harsh criticism had her turned her away because she "might die." We all might die.

MrsOjoButtons · October 2011

Before we started IVF, we had to fill out the forms that say what to do with frozen embryos in the event one of us dies or we divorce. To the people who think an RE should not treat a person with cancer, did you all opt to have the embryos donated or destroyed if you die or divorce? Do you think the RE should help people who are unmarried and don't have a long term partner?

Personally, I'm down with single parents. If my husband dies and we don't have frozen embryos, I'll have sperm extracted from his dead body if I need to. We've also discussed him using a surrogate to have our kids if I die. We're both in the military and have agreed on this since we were engaged.

LVBlvd · October 2011

GuitaristsGirl:
sliz:
I think RE's do need to be responsible to a minimal extent in controlling ... that babies aren't born to ... welfare moms but other than that no.

Im going to go one step further and disagree with this statement, too. REs should never be in the business of determining who is fit to be or deserves to be a parent. Their responsibility, IMO, is to create a pregnancy that can be healthy for mom and bab(ies), ie not HOM.

Oh I disagree with her as well. It isn't the REs job to determine who is fit to be a parent.

Nikki818 · October 2011

I only questioned the moral responsibility of the RE b/c as I'm embarking on donor eggs I'm finding that we have a ton of testing that is mandatorily done on all donor cyles.

I find it unbelievable that I and my husband have to test for everything under the sun per the FDA before we can move forward w/ donor eggs. Of course, I completely understand the donor needing to be tested for genetic diseases. I had to go have a mammogram done before I could do this donor cycle! Mind you, I've already had 4 IUI's and 4 IVF's with max meds...why a mammogram now?

When I ask my RE why, he said that it's mostly FDA guidelines that they are working in when it comes to any donor cycle. I just find it amazing that there are so many restrictions and disease searching done on donor recipients, yet, RE's can move forward w/ no problems on women who are dealing w/ severe diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, whatever. All these diseases can cause serious harm to the mother during pregnancy or afterwards.

I don't know, it just all seems double standard to me.

GenRN45 · October 2011

CBL:
Honestly if the basic tenant of hippocractic oath is to first do no harm, then they not only have a moral obligation, but a legal one.

You know they don't really take an oath, right? Stick out tongue

OrangeSmoke:
Why did you need to ask this under an AE?

And seriously... way to stir the pot.

This. Seriously this. Can open - worms everywhere. And I don't believe that you meant to post this under your real screen name. Please.

Whether you're being judgey, or asking an honest question, I don't know and I don't care. Your timing sucks.

epphd · October 2011

I am happy to chime in as a current cancer patient. I have stage III cancer and while my prognosis is good, it could change at any time. There is a real chance I will die before Sam grows up. Potentially before he even is able to have memories of me. I can't tell you how terrifiying and how painful that is. Knowing that we've elected to not pursue having more children. I can't stand the thought of leaving behind one child, much less two. And I have been told that losing my second pregnancy was, cancer wise, the best thing that could have happened to me because pregancy exacerbates many cancers.

BUT... I have the luxury of having a child. If I didn't - I honestly don't know what my opinion would be. For me, having a child was the ONLY item on my "bucket list". The ONLY thing that I knew I would regret not doing in my one and only life. And having known a couple where the husband died before they had children, I ached for the wife because she had nothing left OF him. Nothing to hold on to that was a part of their marriage, if that makes sense.

So if I was sick and childless now, I really might make the same decision. It's not possible for those of us with kids to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who does not have, and desperately wants, kids. Sure, we were there. But we're not now. And we'll never be able to fully recapture just how deep that ache was.

I don't judge Meghan or her doctor at all. I am sure that those children brought her immense joy and will be a comfort to her husband and family forever. That alone is priceless.

wiscgirl95 · October 2011

MyShellyBelly:

I will not place any judgement on Meghan, her DH or the RE for the choices that they made because I have never been faced with such tough decisions and I do not know what I would do if I were in their shoes.

Ditto.

Without knowing Meghan, her DH or RE and especially without knowing all the facts regarding her illness, prognosis or opinions of her oncologists I will only assume they acted responsibly with what they knew at the time they did her ET.

But going back to the original question of this post, I think RE's should not work to get someone pregnant where it will harm the mother (their patient) but beyond that no they do not have a "moral responsibility". I mean to suggest that they do would possibly mean they should do background checks, mental health assessments, home visits, etc. Sliz mentioned slippery slope and she's right, where would it end?

I think the perception that RE's may be money hungry is way off base. All doctors get paid and paid quite well for what they do. Maybe it's so obvious in this field since so many of us are OOP?

FWIW, on a personal level, my RE was concerned with my health first and foremost and would not proceed until he got the "ok" from my hematologist.

lrrb · October 2011

I have WAY to much to say on this, I keep typing and deleting. I know I feel 100% different than most of you ladies so Ill keep my opinion to myself. But my heart is breaking for her poor husband and children. I believe it was NOT the fault of the RE in this situation, I'm sure she was FULLY aware doing this would most likely cut her life very short. I respect her decision even if I would not make the same one for myself. RIP.

nicolita14w · October 2011

I agree with pp's that we don't know enough about the couple's individual situation and discussions with their RE to fairly judge their particular decision. I also think that unless an RE has determined specifically that a pregnancy will threaten the health of the mother and/or child(ren), it is unethical for him/her to pick and choose who gets to be parents for any other reason. That decision rests with the parents themselves.

I also try to refrain from commenting negatively on anyone's posts in general, but I do think this was really insensitive timing.

JSM3 · October 2011

I waivered back and forth wondering if I should dip my toes into this post or not, considering the sensitive nature of this conversation. As someone who has mostly lurked, and occassionally asked for advice, I feel compelled to offer my two cents. Especially since my perspective is of a different one than most who have replied.

DH and I are essentially in a very similar boat, as Meghan and her DH were. I'm currently battling stage 3 breast cancer. DH and I are in our mid twenties. My tumor was removed, and at this point chemo and then radiation is being done to hopefully insure it never comes back. We have 7 frozen embryos. We have made the decision to find a gestational carrier and start our journey to adding to our family as soon as treatment is finished. Because of the circumstances surrounding my particular diagnosis, my chance of recurrence is higher than, say, someone who was stage 1. We are both very, very aware of this. This is also the reason why we chose to use a carrier, so that if it does come back we can treat it. We felt using a carrier was the most responsible thing for us to do. Insuring our child's safety and being able to fully utilize any and all treatment options should the cancer return. I'm not aware of the details surrounding Meghan's journey with IVF and her prognosis at the time. Even if I did, it's not my place to judge or pick apart. It's their family, their decisions. I'm so glad she got to experience motherhood, and that they were able to be together as a family for a whole year. While a year is an incredibly short amount of time in the grand scheme of things, as a cancer patient, you relish every minute. There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and her husband cherished and loved on those babies every second they could.

My oncologist suggested we wait 3 years before trying for children(even using a gestational carrier) because thats the time frame of the highest risk of recurrence. Her concerns are for the long term and the possiblity that our child/ren would grow up without a mom. But at the end of the day, it's not the decision of my oncologist, my RE, or any other medical professional to make. It's ours. We've talked about the what ifs. We know the reality of our situation isn't ideal, but that's life. Our biggest dreams in life were always to have a family. We've talked with my family about it. They understand and respect our decision. We have a huge support system. Life is not planned, or perfect, and sometimes really crappy things happen, but should we all sit around and NOT live our lives for fear of the what ifs, and waiting for the other shoe to drop? We have both learned to seize each and every moment, and to live our lives to the fullest. Every night when our heads hit the pillow, I want to have no regrets. Cancer makes you think about what's most important in your life. That answer will vary greatly from person to person and for Meghan, and for myself, it's a family.

I totally, totally understand Meghan and her DH's decision to pursue their dream of having children. If the roles were reversed, I would absolutely want a child even if it meant I could potentially be doing it as a "single" mom. My husband feels the same. Heck for all we know the world could end tomorrow, we could get hit by a bus, etc.

Meghan got a whole year with her miracle babies. While it was much, much too short, as a cancer patient that year was a huge blessing. Yes her babies will grow up without their mom, but they have a daddy, they have grandparents, and family who will honor Meghan's devotion and dedication, by making sure they knew how much she loved them and how she stopped at nothing to bring them into this world out of nothing but pure love.

I admire Meghan's strength and her will to live her life as fully as she could. It's difficult for someone who has not been in similar shoes, to truly grasp what these decisions mean. Not everybody would choose to do what she did, and what DH and I are trying to do, but that's okay. At the end of the day, each and every one of us has to be okay with how we've chosen to and continue to live our lives.

My DH and I also lost twin girls 4 years ago. Had we not lost them, we would have two 4 year olds right now. Would we give them away because I have cancer? Because there's a chance things could go bad? Absolutely not. What it boils down to for me is the fact that I would take something over nothing when it comes to having a child. I'm certainly not going to sit around and wait for the other shoe to drop, while we could be enjoying our lives and our plans to have a family.

I know the main question here was regarding the possible responsibility of REs to intervene on someones decision to bring a life into this world. I think I pretty much summed up my opinion on that throughout my "story". It's simply not their decision to make.

Nikki818 · October 2011

epphd:

I am happy to chime in as a current cancer patient. I have stage III cancer and while my prognosis is good, it could change at any time. There is a real chance I will die before Sam grows up. Potentially before he even is able to have memories of me. I can't tell you how terrifiying and how painful that is. Knowing that we've elected to not pursue having more children. I can't stand the thought of leaving behind one child, much less two. And I have been told that losing my second pregnancy was, cancer wise, the best thing that could have happened to me because pregancy exacerbates many cancers.

Oh, Epphd, you just made me cry and my heart ache! I pray for you every night and I hope, with every fiber of my being, that you will joyfully dance w/ Sam at his wedding. My mom passed away, when I was 2 1/2, and I have memories of her...I know I do. I know they are memories. Sam will always remember you. Don't ever think he may not. Actually, don't think this way at all....like I said, you will be around for a very looong time!! God Bless you! xo

epphd · October 2011

JSM3:
I waivered back and forth wondering if I should dip my toes into this post or not, considering the sensitive nature of this conversation. As someone who has mostly lurked, and occassionally asked for advice, I feel compelled to offer my two cents. Especially since my perspective is of a different one than most who have replied.

DH and I are essentially in a very similar boat, as Meghan and her DH were. I'm currently battling stage 3 breast cancer. DH and I are in our mid twenties. My tumor was removed, and at this point chemo and then radiation is being done to hopefully insure it never comes back. We have 7 frozen embryos. We have made the decision to find a gestational carrier and start our journey to adding to our family as soon as treatment is finished. Because of the circumstances surrounding my particular diagnosis, my chance of recurrence is higher than, say, someone who was stage 1. We are both very, very aware of this. This is also the reason why we chose to use a carrier, so that if it does come back we can treat it. We felt using a carrier was the most responsible thing for us to do. Insuring our child's safety and being able to fully utilize any and all treatment options should the cancer return. I'm not aware of the details surrounding Meghan's journey with IVF and her prognosis at the time. Even if I did, it's not my place to judge or pick apart. It's their family, their decisions. I'm so glad she got to experience motherhood, and that they were able to be together as a family for a whole year. While a year is an incredibly short amount of time in the grand scheme of things, as a cancer patient, you relish every minute. There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and her husband cherished and loved on those babies every second they could.

My oncologist suggested we wait 3 years before trying for children(even using a gestational carrier) because thats the time frame of the highest risk of recurrence. Her concerns are for the long term and the possiblity that our child/ren would grow up without a mom. But at the end of the day, it's not the decision of my oncologist, my RE, or any other medical professional to make. It's ours. We've talked about the what ifs. We know the reality of our situation isn't ideal, but that's life. Our biggest dreams in life were always to have a family. We've talked with my family about it. They understand and respect our decision. We have a huge support system. Life is not planned, or perfect, and sometimes really crappy things happen, but should we all sit around and NOT live our lives for fear of the what ifs, and waiting for the other shoe to drop? We have both learned to seize each and every moment, and to live our lives to the fullest. Every night when our heads hit the pillow, I want to have no regrets. Cancer makes you think about what's most important in your life. That answer will vary greatly from person to person and for Meghan, and for myself, it's a family.

I totally, totally understand Meghan and her DH's decision to pursue their dream of having children. If the roles were reversed, I would absolutely want a child even if it meant I could potentially be doing it as a "single" mom. My husband feels the same. Heck for all we know the world could end tomorrow, we could get hit by a bus, etc.

Meghan got a whole year with her miracle babies. While it was much, much too short, as a cancer patient that year was a huge blessing. Yes her babies will grow up without their mom, but they have a daddy, they have grandparents, and family who will honor Meghan's devotion and dedication, by making sure they knew how much she loved them and how she stopped at nothing to bring them into this world out of nothing but pure love.

I admire Meghan's strength and her will to live her life as fully as she could. It's difficult for someone who has not been in similar shoes, to truly grasp what these decisions mean. Not everybody would choose to do what she did, and what DH and I are trying to do, but that's okay. At the end of the day, each and every one of us has to be okay with how we've chosen to and continue to live our lives.

My DH and I also lost twin girls 4 years ago. Had we not lost them, we would have two 4 year olds right now. Would we give them away because I have cancer? Because there's a chance things could go bad? Absolutely not. What it boils down to for me is the fact that I would take something over nothing when it comes to having a child. I'm certainly not going to sit around and wait for the other shoe to drop, while we could be enjoying our lives and our plans to have a family.

I know the main question here was regarding the possible responsibility of REs to intervene on someones decision to bring a life into this world. I think I pretty much summed up my opinion on that throughout my "story". It's simply not their decision to make.

JSM, if you ever want to chat to another active cancer patient (mine is colon), let me know. How is chemo going? I am sure we would have a lot in common

Best to you - this journey is a totally mindblowing experience. I totally understand your decision and I wish you all the best.

njdcgirl · October 2011

I completely appreciate and am humbled by the responses of dulcinea03, epphd and JSM - reminding all of us that we just don't know how we would respond if faced with fighting cancer. Thank you for sharing your unique perspectives (how I wish you didn't have them regarding this issue!) Although I know the original question was about REs, I think it really comes off as questioning the decision of someone who can't defend themself. I agree with those who said that the timing of this post was in poor taste.

JillRock96 · October 2011

njdcgirl:
I completely appreciate and am humbled by the responses of epphd and JSM - reminding all of us that we just don't know how we would respond if faced with fighting cancer. Thank you for sharing your unique perspectives (how I wish you didn't have them regarding this issue!) Although I know the original question was about REs, I think it really comes off as questioning the decision of someone who can't defend themself. I agree with those who said that the timing of this post was in poor taste.

I agree with this 100%. Epphd and JSM, thank you for your responses. To think about these issues hypothetically is one thing, especially if you are fortunate enough not to be put in this difficult (impossible) situation. But there are ladies on this board who are currently dealing with these issues -- it is life for them. I agree with those who said the timing is in poor taste.

lnle · October 2011

JillRock96:
njdcgirl:
I completely appreciate and am humbled by the responses of epphd and JSM - reminding all of us that we just don't know how we would respond if faced with fighting cancer. Thank you for sharing your unique perspectives (how I wish you didn't have them regarding this issue!) Although I know the original question was about REs, I think it really comes off as questioning the decision of someone who can't defend themself. I agree with those who said that the timing of this post was in poor taste.
I agree with this 100%. Epphd and JSM, thank you for your responses. To think about these issues hypothetically is one thing, especially if you are fortunate enough not to be put in this difficult (impossible) situation. But there are ladies on this board who are currently dealing with these issues -- it is life for them. I agree with those who said the timing is in poor taste.

Ditto all of this. But I also am so appreciative that everyone can discuss this respectfully, with no flames.

Epphd - I have been thinking about you a lot lately and sending you all of the positive energy I can. (((hugs))) Sending hugs to JSM too.

Want a personalized experience?

Do you think RE's have a moral responsiblility?

Re: Do you think RE's have a moral responsiblility?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards