U
urban-hermit
Guest
Just wanted to share this article and the letter I wrote to the columnist, with thanks to everybody I’ve met here who have taught me so much.
Dear Nicole,
Thank you for your poignant column of May 4th, “Having to Make This Choice.”
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003692971_brodeur04m.html
I still don’t understand why Diane Chapel and her husband “had to” have an abortion.
I assume they believed, barring some miracle, that their baby would not survive. My heart honestly goes out to them and I realize they did what they thought was best.
Still, wouldn’t their grieving process be more straightforward and therapeutic if she or he (the baby) had been born, and - even if only briefly - comforted and cared for as well as realistically possible, before dying a natural death? Obviously these parents felt it was better for them to take the course of events into their own hands, and cut that life short.
As difficult as it is, we need to be honest about what really happened here. Choice is a perfectly fine word, but it carries no real meaning until we define what is being chosen. If we are to argue for or against some choice we must be clear on what it is, especially in a matter of this gravity.
Instead of a natural death mitigated by whatever palliative care medical science could offer to ease it, their child was instead destroyed while still alive in Diane’s womb, and likely experienced, however briefly, excruciating pain, having already developed to 24 weeks. Horrible is an insufficient word for the “choice” they felt compelled to make.
And my question remains: where did such a compulsion came from? Was it a desire to avoid bringing a terminally handicapped child into the world? Would the child have felt actual pain from his birth defects? Could that pain have been eased by medical science? Might the child have been able to at least sense some welcoming touch from his mother or father before passing away? Did the course of action chosen make the situation better? Are we being honest with parents in this situation by telling them that abortion will solve or even mitigate their problem?
I hope you are not rolling your eyes dismissively as you read this (if indeed you are reading it), but I still see no point to Diane and her husband having the child intentionally destroyed by a doctor who is supposed to be a healer. As sad and seemingly futile as it seems to bring to birth a severely handicapped child, it is infinitely better in every way than the course of action that was chosen.
Even the brief life of a doomed baby can have a purpose. Knowing that you offered that little person whatever comfort was within your power is something no amount of rationalizations can equal. We need courage, and it’s very hard sometimes. I don’t condemn Diane and her husband, but I do condemn the course of action which was left open to them and which, in their distress, they chose. In this case the prognosis was, I assume, death for the baby. Why cause death sooner? This only brings a false sense of control. Completely false.
Good as they are, doctors are not omniscient. Once we intentionally cut short somebody else’s life, it’s irrevocable. Nobody will ever know what would have been. Only what might have been. Or what “probably” would have been, but for our terminating action. We cannot avoid a sad ending by forcing death sooner. And by doing that we close the door to any outcome that might have been better in some way than expected. We have a deep need to protect, not harm, the innocent and defenseless. When we go against that, we harm others and stunt ourselves as human beings. Awful as it seems, it is better for a baby, even a malformed baby, to die in his mother’s arms with the knowledge that every moment of his or her brief life was valued as much as possible, than to be intentionally destroyed in the way this one must have been.
I understand why you are worried about a slippery slope. I also worry about a slippery slope - the one we start down when we fail to respect and protect life, from conception to natural death. And that has to extend especially to our handicapped brethren, who are among the most vulnerable.
Sincerely and with hope,
Dear Nicole,
Thank you for your poignant column of May 4th, “Having to Make This Choice.”
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003692971_brodeur04m.html
I still don’t understand why Diane Chapel and her husband “had to” have an abortion.
I assume they believed, barring some miracle, that their baby would not survive. My heart honestly goes out to them and I realize they did what they thought was best.
Still, wouldn’t their grieving process be more straightforward and therapeutic if she or he (the baby) had been born, and - even if only briefly - comforted and cared for as well as realistically possible, before dying a natural death? Obviously these parents felt it was better for them to take the course of events into their own hands, and cut that life short.
As difficult as it is, we need to be honest about what really happened here. Choice is a perfectly fine word, but it carries no real meaning until we define what is being chosen. If we are to argue for or against some choice we must be clear on what it is, especially in a matter of this gravity.
Instead of a natural death mitigated by whatever palliative care medical science could offer to ease it, their child was instead destroyed while still alive in Diane’s womb, and likely experienced, however briefly, excruciating pain, having already developed to 24 weeks. Horrible is an insufficient word for the “choice” they felt compelled to make.
And my question remains: where did such a compulsion came from? Was it a desire to avoid bringing a terminally handicapped child into the world? Would the child have felt actual pain from his birth defects? Could that pain have been eased by medical science? Might the child have been able to at least sense some welcoming touch from his mother or father before passing away? Did the course of action chosen make the situation better? Are we being honest with parents in this situation by telling them that abortion will solve or even mitigate their problem?
I hope you are not rolling your eyes dismissively as you read this (if indeed you are reading it), but I still see no point to Diane and her husband having the child intentionally destroyed by a doctor who is supposed to be a healer. As sad and seemingly futile as it seems to bring to birth a severely handicapped child, it is infinitely better in every way than the course of action that was chosen.
Even the brief life of a doomed baby can have a purpose. Knowing that you offered that little person whatever comfort was within your power is something no amount of rationalizations can equal. We need courage, and it’s very hard sometimes. I don’t condemn Diane and her husband, but I do condemn the course of action which was left open to them and which, in their distress, they chose. In this case the prognosis was, I assume, death for the baby. Why cause death sooner? This only brings a false sense of control. Completely false.
Good as they are, doctors are not omniscient. Once we intentionally cut short somebody else’s life, it’s irrevocable. Nobody will ever know what would have been. Only what might have been. Or what “probably” would have been, but for our terminating action. We cannot avoid a sad ending by forcing death sooner. And by doing that we close the door to any outcome that might have been better in some way than expected. We have a deep need to protect, not harm, the innocent and defenseless. When we go against that, we harm others and stunt ourselves as human beings. Awful as it seems, it is better for a baby, even a malformed baby, to die in his mother’s arms with the knowledge that every moment of his or her brief life was valued as much as possible, than to be intentionally destroyed in the way this one must have been.
I understand why you are worried about a slippery slope. I also worry about a slippery slope - the one we start down when we fail to respect and protect life, from conception to natural death. And that has to extend especially to our handicapped brethren, who are among the most vulnerable.
Sincerely and with hope,
- name withheld
