January 25, 2008
-
Cancer Treatment and Pregnancy
A mother named Lorraine Allard was pregnant when she found out she had liver cancer.
She had the choice to abort her baby and receive chemotherapy or wait to get her treatment until after she had her baby. She decided to have her baby.
She began her chemotherapy after her son was born. But it was too late. She died two months after his birth.
The mother is described as “courageous and selfless.” But she left her new child and three other children behind. He had three daughters; Leah, 10; Amy, 8; and Courtney, 20 months. Here is the link: Link
Was it selfless to leave 3 children behind in order to save one?
Comments (127)
No, I would have done the same thing.
I think I saw a House episode on this
It was selfless but stupid.
Those children don’t have their mother now, but that doesn’t mean I don’t admire her for it.
God’s ways are not our ways, and his plans aren’t our plans. He’s got a plan for her kids.
Also, even if she HAD gone through with chemo, there’s no saying she would have been saved anyway. And then they would both be dead.
i’m not sure i am the one to judge. i did not know her.
Yes, it was selfless. It may not have been considerate of the other children, but she was probably not thinking about herself when she risked her life to save her child.
I think it’s half selfless/selfish. I’d change my opinion if I knew for sure she was going to die anyway. But if there’s the chance she was going to live, no. And in her position, I would not have done what she did, I would’ve taken the treatments. That is extremely unfair to her surviving children, husband and family. The loss of a mother, wife, sister, daughter is much worse than the loss of a fetus.
Stupid, it’s like committing suicide.
yes, she gave those children life, life that they get to experience. yes, they have to live it without her, and yes that will be so hard. but when that little boy gets to be talking and walking and doing all the things boys do, her other children and her husband will see her in that little boy and he will bring them more joy than they can imagine right now.
I think she wasn’t very logical in this situation. Maybe she was acting out of selflessness, but it still makes her kind of an idiot.
@CoffeeRevolutionary - and abortion would have been murder.
Well, first of all – how the hell did she know she was going to die two months later? I think if she would have known she would have died two months after birth, she probably would have started treatment right away… I dunno…
Cancer is sticky, you don’t know the results once you start something – a lot of people are told they have a chance and they really don’t.. a lot of people think they’re dying and they don’t..
I think she did the right thing for her baby, not like she knew she would die and her kids would be left motherless.
I was thinking in the term of being selfish of wanting to have her babies.. Not regarding her own..
Yes, It was selfless for giving up her life for her own kids..
No, selfish for wanting the baby more than her own life..
She was already in advanced stages of cancer. She probably was not going to make it through it anyway, so I think letting her child live was probably the best decision. If it had been detected early, I don’t know if I still think it would have been the best decision.
yes
i think so
I think it was very unselfish of her, but I wouldn’t have judged her if she decided to abort the kid and save her own life.
why are you talking so much about abortion issues lately? There are reasons why people can justify it….this is one of them. IMO a mothers life should never be put in danger. We live in the 21st century.
It’s selfless to sacrifice your life for another.
Having said that, I think she had every right to abort the fetus and I would have done the same.
I wonder how many from the so-called “pro-choice” crowd will laud her for her choice, and how many will be judgmental. Yes, she selflessly chose the life of another over her own. I cannot possibly condemn such a choice.
It was the best choice in a bad situation.
She died only two months after giving birth. It does not sound like she would have lived anyway. Yes what she did was selfless, but some are calling it stupid.
As fast as she died, her cancer was advanced when they found it. Her odds were never good, what some are a stupid was her not wanting one of her last acts, to be a futile effort to live, that killed her baby.
She both noble and not at all stupid.
I didn’t realize her cancer was in such an advanced stage when they discovered it. In that case, I probably would have done the same. Advanced liver cancer basically means you’re terminal, even with treatment. If she had a rapid-growing cancer that was detected very early though, I think it would have been a different story. I could not judge someone for terminating a pregnancy in that case.
@Lydrock - I AGREE 100%
I would’ve done the same thing. I could never have convicted my own child to death simply because of my own circumstances; it’s very sad that her children don’t have a biological mother, but at least they have life, and the freedom to do whatever they want with it.
You can’t get into the “it would be better for the child to not have existed” arguments — better for whom? How could it benefit the child to have not existed? Doesn’t make sense. I think what this woman did was not only selfless, but perfectly logical and rational.
I can see both sides, but if it was that far advanced, then she made the righ decision. Had she detected it earlier, then I think the situation would’ve been different, as well as her choice.
she brought life into the world once again and then lost hers. I hope the children will grow up knowing what type of mother they really had, but lost.
I’m sure she and those who love her, put thought into this decision. Yes, she was very selfless and I couldn’t imagine a loving mother doing anything else.
It is not my place to judge others. However, I would have done the same thing.
it was selfish for her to do that.
1. did she think about her husband?
2. did she think about her other children?
3. did she think about her parents?
4. did she think about the new baby to be born?
but i guess it also depends on what stage her cancer was and what the prognosis was.
No, it was not selfless. It was pretty stupid.
I think all the people saying “stupid” have officially made me lose my last shred of hope for the human race.
Come quickly, zombie apocalypse.
err no… I would have aborted the baby. She left four children without a mother just so she could add another kid in to an already overpopulated world.
@Lydrock - Beautifully put.
@sis_to_2 -
Murdering an idea. It’s no worse than what conservatives do to the concept of free love.
An unborn baby is just an idea; like any idea it can’t truly be killed.
this is a lose and lose and she would have been judged by everyone who wasn’t walking in her shoes no matter what she did. She did what she believed was right and maybe that is what matters…
No… it wasn’t, but at least the one child will know her mother loved her… just not enough apparently.
liver cancer is usually fatal…..she got to enjoy her sweet baby for two months, no one promises us two months sick or well. Life is a vapor after all and every day, every minute every hour is a gift. I think she made the right choice for her.
Jesus is going to take care of those kids.
I think she rolled the dice and lost – bummer all around.
Yes..
She’s amazing..
And that wasn’t stupid at all!
I don’t know. If it were my first pregnancy, I would probably not allow an abortion, but for the 4th, who knows…it’s really hard on her husband and children. I really don’t know…
9 months of Chemotherapy would have likely saved her life if the cancer was found early.
I just find her actions stupid.
I’d like to think I’d jump in front of a bus to push my child out of the way. I wouldn’t consider that stupid, even if it left my kid(s) without a father.
I’ve thought about this scenario before and it’s a difficult situation but she did the right thing. There was no assurance that the chemo would’ve worked anyways. The only thing assured in life is death and taxes. She’s a brave woman. That baby may grow up and invent a cure for liver cancer.
Yes, I think so.
ryc: believe me, I’ve gone through 4 already, and I’ve onlybeen at school for 2 and half years! :p
That was her choise.
Who is to decide- I feel its up to the individual..
While I can’t condemn a person for choosing her childs life over her own, even if it was an unborn child. I do think it was a descision that was made emotionally instead of logically. She saved one life, but broke apart a handful of others.
Personally, if it had been me, if there was a chance that I would live through the cancer, I would have aborted and tried again when I was healthy and strong. I wouldn’t have just done it for myself, but for the family I had a responsibility to.
I agree completely with what jessicabravata said. It’s not like she KNEW she was going to die two months after she had the baby…
I would have done the same thing too. But this is also assuming that there was a dad in the life of these children. It would be cruel and selfish to leave these children alone in the world without trying to save myself FOR THEM.
However, liver cancer is most likely a terminal disease, especially in late stages. She had nothing to lose but a little time, and she gave a life. That is selfless.
@Merlinfairy - um, he said sefless not selfish (just FYI)
and YES
No, I think it was actually quite selfish that she had the baby. She had three other children to live for, and in my opinion 3 children without a mum is a hell of alot better than 4 without their mum. She might not have died if she hadn’t had the baby.
If I was in her place, I’d have had an abortion and saved myself and tried to spare my existing children the pain of losing me.
No, because sometimes doctors are wrong. Miracles do happen. Amazing things have happened!
depends on how severe the cancer was when she found out about it. and yes, she chose her baby’s life over her own, but what about the three children that she left behind? her decision may be perceived as “noble,” but i really depends on who’s point of view you consider it from.
@Doubledb - Yea, I kinda realize that after I hit submit.. I guess I was still sleepyhead when I read it.. forgive me.. Too bad there is no edit button for me to fix it..
Selfless, woohoo for you. Practical? You suck. That’s how it is.
The heart of a true mom.
My first thought after reading some of these responses is…How dare some of you judge her for the choice she made!
I can’t imagine being put in that horrible situation and having to choose. I’m 3 months pregnant now and I would have such a hard time figuring out what to do. I do think it’s SELFLESS to give up your life for another. And if anyone judged me for my decision…shame on them!
@Lydrock - Amen to both of your comments, I was basically going to say the same thing, glad I read comments first this time
So sad though, 
@Brilliant_Innocence - You are right, and the hate of some of the folks that comment here is unbelievably sad. And they think CHRISTIANS are the ones full of hate and judgement….WOW!!!!
Very selfless. Amazing. I actually had a friend of a friend. A woman and believer who found out she had advanced breast cancer and that she was pregnant. They wanted her on chemo right away and that she would have to have an abortion. We all prayed for her and her husband.
They ended up having the abortion. I’m sure the decision was very difficult. I didn’t agree personally with her decision if there was even a small possibility that she could have brought the child to term even if it meant her life. That is just my view. I would pray my wife would make that choice. I’m not here to judge, but as believers we are asked to make these difficult choices. I wonder if we make them with integrity many times. It seems like this woman did (and I’m not sure if she is even a believer).
i think it is one of those things where people have to live by their own morals and convictions. I don’t judge her and if she chose to abort I wouldn’t judge either. Anyone who fights cancer is courageous.
She left him behind, too, because she felt his life was worth it. I do, too. I would have done the same.
What a sad but beautiful story. My decision would have been the same. A soul is a soul and only God has the right to take a soul. Bless this family and those precious children, life without a mom is going to be hard but what a wonderful mother they have.
I think her action was heroic.
Dan,
I worked for 4 years for a non-profit agency before accepting my current job 1 1/2 years ago. For 2 of the years I was at the non-profit, I was a case manager for a program that provided financial assistance to women (an men even though none came through the agency while I ran the program) who had breast cancer, were undergoing treatment, and having financial difficulties as a result ( loss of job or reduced hours due to treatment resulting in lower household income or an increase in expenses due to treatment ( prescriptions, medical bills, etc.)) During the time I ran this program I had three pregnant patients( two were 28 years old and one was 36 years old when they entered my program). All three were pregnant when they discovered they had cancer, all of them had treatments to some degree while pregnant, and all three delivered healthy babies. one was pre-term but only stayed in the hospital a couple of weeks and had no major complications. At the time I left the agency one of the mothers had completed her treatment and was recovering. The other two were finishing their treatments. I followed one of the women for a while afterward and she was doing well. Financially she still struggled because her treatment was taking the better part of a year by that time, but otherwise she was hanging in there.
I don’t think it was “selfless” to “leave” her children behind, but lets be honest she had cancer and whether she postponed treatment by a few months or not there was a possibility she might die. Treatment for cancer has come a long way and some cancers can be treated during pregnancy (up until certain points in the pregnancy and to certain degrees). Unfortunately, I do not know much about the amount of risk to the fetus.
Kimberly
She would have died anyway from the looks of it.
I don’t see how that’s being noble.
You know, what really is selfless? If you’re doing it because you think it’s the “right” thing to do, then it’s really not selfless. She made a choice and there was a consequence. What she did was the “right” thing for her. I applaud her for sticking to what she felt was “right.”
Selfless? I don’t know. She certainly put the life of her unborn child ahead of her own. But she also put the life of her unborn child ahead of the family as a whole. Sounds like a no-win situation. I’d have supported her decision.
One would need to walk in her shoes to make that decision. Liver cancer is really ugly stuff and it’s usually not something you live through for very long.
reckless and stupid. nevermind the other three children, can you imagine what that 2 month-old might feel when he grows up and finds out that mommy died because of him?
No I don’t think so. The chemo would have killed the baby and who knows maybe it would of taken her as well. Two dead people? Or one dead person? I wonder if the baby is ok since mommy had liver problems.
Selfless and smart. Liver Cancer is terminal. She would have died in a short period even if she had the chemo. And she gave life to someone else.
Yes, it was selfless of her to give up her own life for her child.
Cancer is a tricky thing. I know there are some lucky ones who go into remission and it never comes back. But I personally have never known anyone to survive it. If I had been in her place, I would’ve done the same. She most likely would’ve died anyway, being it was in it’s advanced stages, and she still would’ve left behind her family. She wanted to give her son a chance at life, and that is a noble thing.
I just wanted to add that she is beautiful
inside and out.
She knew the risks. She chose life over death for her child and left the rest in God’s Hands. He has plans for each one of her children. My guess is that they are surrounded by people who love them very much and will do right by her.
Hrm… On one hand, if she had aborted, she may have gotten more then a year with her existing children. On the other, she did at least get that year (or nearly anyway). Personally, I wouldn’t have chanced it. If I already had three children, what would be the loss of one I never knew?
However, that reaction is why I will never have children in the first place.
Nope, it is very careless, very, very mean.
I love how judgemental some people are. Man. Can’t they just say.. wow.. what a sad story.. and leave it at that?
I’d say that it was selfless to have the baby in one sense, because “my life for yours” is always definitively selfless. BUT I think it was careless to put the wellbeing of one child ahead of the three she already had in this world.
I think she was pretty selfless, although the children will be living without her mother they will have their father and other family members to help them out
To have liver cancer that far advanced and that undetected is a death sentence in and of itself. No need to kill another.
Not certain, it is a tough one. I wouldn’t say selfless, but I dont know the whole story… It could very well have been an irrational decision made on a strange set of beliefs that left four children without their mother, but either way it did seem to say something about her priorities: it was more important to bring yet another life into the world than attempt to preserve one that was already here and to help secure the quality of life for three others yet.
Doesn’t she have a lovely smile in this picture? I think that says it all.
Unfortunately it sounds like she would possibly have died either way, since the cancer in her liver was not the primary cancer but was instead where it had spread to.
I also don’t think anyone else can ever make a decision like this for anyone else– it is so personal and difficult. She says she would have lost her will to live if she’d had to abort the fetus to get chemo– I doubt that would’ve worked well for her other kids, either.
It just goes to show she chose love. To me, this was selfless, she gave her baby a chance at life and selflessly gave up her own. It’s sad, but the children still do have a family and a mother that watches over them from heaven.
This is a tough call. If the kids have loving parents now I would say that I’m fully behind her sacrifice. If they don’t… well… I can’t pass judgment, you know? I’m only human.
(by which I mean: How could she have known?)
No it wasn’t selfless. She saved a life. Those 3 kids did not end up dying. All of them still have their chance to live.
selfless, I probably would have done the same thing, Selfish because kids are now without mom… but then again, like some says, we don’t know her well to judge. And again, it is God’s plan. If God wanted her to stay around and raise those children, He would have healed all her disease.
I think if I went through that, I probably would have taken the chemo WHILE I am pregnant. Take the risk. Both may have survived. Maybe not. Or one could have died while other lived.
Who the hell knows. God does.
Wow. Like my friend. She did the same. Only her child was to be given to another couple who couldn’t have kids. She died like, what? a year later? Her husband fell apart, moved to australia where various relatives were. The two small children had a hard time. But you know what? They are receiving a lot of love and resurrection from their brother, who survived. Tha adopted family tends her grave and memory well. They are faithful, at least once a year whether they live in Japan, Venezuela, Russia or Samoa. Amazing? yes.
Who knows? She made her choice. God bless us all. Her kids see that she valued life itself, and I pray this child will eventually bless the others to help them overcome their loss, just as my friend’s kid has and is doing.
Yes it was selfless. I hope that I would have the courage to do the same thing given the choice. The thing is, people risk their lives to save the life of their children every day. The people that claim she was stupid, would you say the same thing if her child had been born before the cancer and she had to give up her life for her child for some reason? There shouldn’t be a difference.
she gave someone LIFE.
That’s the most important. the kids will survive.
@Lydrock -
Selfless, indeed.
Since it’s late in the comments, it probably won’t get to many – but I had a thought –
Even those who do not hold to a faith in our Judeo – Christian God will certainly see –
That the sacrificial giving of One’s life – risen or not (for arguments sake) will carry and strengthen generations (2000 years worth so far…)
The family did not lose their mother…can’t wait to see, Lord willing I’m around, what the life of this child becomes…
Brief ^ yes, but all the expounding wouldn’t convince those who refuse to understand…
I agree with Lydrock and GermanWrench!
i’d of done the same. the life of her children- born and unborn- was more precious to her than her own life. what she did was courageous and i’m rather sure her children feel the same way.
The article said that the cancer was spreading to other organs by the time she found out. In my opinion, she is selfless. How do we know that chemo would have saved her at all?
I think she made the decision that was right for her. She knew that she was doing. That’s all that matters.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????She was in the advanced stages of liver cancer and took a risk, adding to her already high likelihood of mortality, so that she could give life to her newborn child. For that she is called stupid, selfish, and an idiot. To the name callers, you may not have made the same choice, but who really is the idiot? Pray you are never placed in the same situation.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
@Lydrock - I agree with you!
@rrozz - so true, so true….
I only hope I’d have had the courage to do the same thing….
@lotta_valdez -
Why is it “mean”? ….
Should she have gambled with the possibility of 2 more years added to her own life at the expense of her little son’s future? The girls still have their father, and the memory of knowing their mom would have done the same for them.
I think our standard for what constitutes selfless and selfish are misconstrued.
She was irresponsible towards her other children.
Sacrificing the life of one fetus to save herself would be the truly selfless thing.
She would endure the knowledge of her sacrifice, but know that her already born, and growing children, would have a mother. She had a baby already, a twenty month old.
How on earth will the father be able to care for four children?
Let alone two infants.
<3 Joce
It’s not like she knew she was going to die if she decided to have the baby though…
Jewish law states that the mother’s life is more important than that of the unborn baby. The mother is needed by other children/the family. The mother can always bear more children. Jewish law states that if the health of the mother is threatened either directly or indirectly because of the baby she is to abort the pregnancy. I would go by Jewish law if I was her mainly because it makes sense and also because I’m Jewish. It seems like Christians always think that saving the baby is more important above everything else. They totally disregard the consequences for their actions as well as the fact that not everyone is Christian and not everyone thinks that a fetus is a baby. Jewish law is VERY clear on when you can get an abortion and when you cannot. Not only that, but there is a constant dialogue recorded in the Mishnah about it from rabbis from many centuries ago and also today.
Well…. If she was going to die anyways, like a lot of people are suggesting… I think its best to keep the child, and prepare your other kids for your death… Such as doing up a will, trust accounts, saying your goodbyes and whatnot. Dont kill a child just to save a few months of your own life… especially considering the standard of living that chemo provides. Take your kids on a road trip or something.
She committed the ultimate selfless act. I don’t know how many of you who have berated her for leaving behind four small ones to a father who you think can not handle it are Christian or not. But think on this. Christ Himself died so that all of us may be saved. Those of you who are not, think on this, how many soldiers over seas willingly die in order that thier fellows would live? How many of them do you think give thought to the lives thier families will have? Without them, life would be difficult, yes, but it would be free. How many of you honestly believe this woman made the choice on her own? How many of you think that she did not cunsult her family and friends knowing that if she went through chemo both her and her child may have died anyway. Giving ones life so that others may live is not stupid or selfish. It is the ultimate act that places others before yourself. I hope none of us would ever have to face that choice, but if we do, I hope that we would live by our Lords example and put our own lives down, so that another may live.
I admire the hell out of her. And if she had lived, could she have lived with killing her child to save her own skin?
this is of course the right thing to have done, and she is selfless, brave, and a courageous example to the world.
i think it was the right thing to do…i would have done the same thing if i had been in her shoes…..saving a life,though risking her own was the most selfless thing she could have done…yes she did leave her her other children,but there is nothing wrng with what she did.
I think it was selfless.
A mother’s love is a crazy thing. & she definitely demonstrated how strong it can be by sacrificing herself for her child.
The other kids will live without their mother. They should be proud to have had a mother so strong & loving.
She was very brave. But I can’t make that judgment.
It seems pretty darn stupid.
She’s a very true definition of being a woman. Courageous, Fiesty and Wise. I trully admire her. RIP
@sis_to_2 - I agree, that boy will become a joy to them all as he grows….the mother’s cancer was so advanced that she wouldn’t have had much more time anyway, even if she had aborted and had chemo then. Now the boy lives on, while the mother cannot – very, very sad, but the father has those four children to love. I wish for him every blessing and prayers and lots and lots of help with the kids.
Sorry, but I would’ve probably aborted the baby just for the possibility that I may have a chance to raise the ones that I already do have instead of leaving all of them motherless.
Having lost my mother at a young age, I know how one’s life is completely altered in losing a parent. I think that while her intentions were obviously good, she had a respsonsibility to her living children. The first priority to her living children was to stay alive and provide for them. There will be a lot of anger when they grow up, and possibly resentment. Her strength and heart are obvious, but I’m sure they’d rather her have fought for her life than make a selfless gesture.
i hate to imagine if the other three kids will resent the son and how the son will feel knowing that his mother sacrificed for him…so much pressure..
maybe this is selfish maybe this is stupid.
But every mother would rather kill herself to save her kids than give it up.
At least, most of the mother.
It was at an advanced stage – how much would the chemo help?
yes. this woman was brave, selfless and made the right choice. all of her children are living and sadly there is no guarantee that she would have lived if she had gotten the chemo sooner. a better chance maybe, but no promise.
i applaud this woman. i am pro life and i think it’s beautiful that she cared enough to be that brave and take the risks. but after having three children and raising and loving them, how could you kill one that was on the way? she made the right choice. i hope all her children realize how brave she was.
i pray they meet again one day in heaven. <3
@pamilvr - I read your comment, nice addition to the post
i admire her. i could never have an abortion.
my mom tells me all the time that until i have a child, i will never know how much she loves me.
and in reading the article, her cancer was advanced. she was not going to live long.
Personally, it is not a choice I would have made. In my opinion, the existing children needed a mother a hell of a lot more than they needed another sibling. It was selfless in the sense that she sacrificed her life to give life to another human. It was selfish in the sense that now her children have no mother. There was no winner here, not even the child whose life she sought to save as it now has no mother.
yeh selfless. now the child has the whole life to look forward.
@Lydrock - I hope God’s plans for the children includes therapy
No one is going to win in this argue.