A cancer patient is being denied potentially life-saving treatment because of strict anti-abortion laws. This is happening in Nicaragua, where laws against abortion are among the world’s most restrictive.
Because the cancer drugs could harm the fetus, doctors are not able to do anything to help the 27-year-old patient who doctors think will certainly die if not treated. A government-run medical commission is expected to announce a decision on appeals for treatment some time today.
This week’s question has you facing this same dilemma.
- First to play last week: psychfun . Congratulations!
(According to the rules, “First to Play” requires you to be the first to include the link to the specific entry in which you answered the questions, not just the general link to your blog.)
Here is this week’s “Monday’s Morals” question. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your blog…but either way, leave a link to your site so that everyone else can visit! If you repost the questions on your site, you must link back to this site as the source. Permission is not granted to copy the questions to message boards for the purpose of having members answer and play along there.
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
You have the authority to allow doctors to treat a young female cancer patient who is pregnant. The drugs that could save her life may also destroy the fetus she is carrying. Assuming the mother wants to live and wants her baby to live as well, would you allow the treatment to occur to potentially save the mother, even if it means potentially killing the unborn child? Why or why not?
If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), send me an email! I’d love to be able to include it in a future edition of the Saturday Six.