What a horrible decision to have to make and a terrible position to be in, but I would choose treatment first. I think it would be horribly sad to leave a baby without a mother if it didn't need to be that way.

What a terrible decision. I would go for treatment. If the chemo prevented me from having a baby, I would adopt. At least then you're healthy AND you have a child.

This makes me think about that woman a few years ago who was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer while pregnant and she died but the baby survived. I think they kept her body alive just long enough so that the baby would have a good chance of surviving. Granted, this situation is a little different, but it still brings that to mind for me.

NO WAY!

I think this is crazy. I could see freezing my eggs before undergoing chemo, or I could see maybe risking my health if I was already pregnant when I was diagnosed, but I couldn't see trying to become pregnant knowing that I had cancer, especially in her situation where she'd be a single parent! If the worst happened, who would take care of the baby? Babies need parents!

No.

not at all.
there are milions of kids in the world waiting to be adopted and loved.
actually i think it is selfish to ruin yourself just to give birth to a baby and then die and leave it and your family alone.

I think that it is selfish for a mother to do that why would a child need to suffer without a mother or a sick mother, I think if everything went well after chemotherapy adopt ala sheryl crow

I personally would choose treatment but it must be a hard decision. My sister has a heart condition that will make it dangerous, though not impossible, to have a child. She really wants one but must deal with the reality that it could be fatal. She is many years off from making the choice and adoption or surrogacy is always an option for her. But she still would love to carry her own child and have the experience for herself, which I don't really think makes her selfish.

**I meant carry a child and experience pregnancy and birth herself. Any way she becomes a parent the child will be her own**

chemo
with out the chemo - she will not be able to see her baby grow

This is truly a sad situation. For me, I wouldn't want to leave a child without parents :-/

Treatment should come first.

I wouldn't want to be put in this situation, so my heart goes out to any one who has to... however (I don't mean to be insensitive by this - but...) I think it is very irresponsible to want to bring a baby into this world when you have a life-threatening illness. I can unerstand her desire in wanting a baby so bad, she's willing to risk her health, but what happens to the baby if god-forbid the mom were to die b/c of the illness.
if it was possible, i'd rather get healthy - then - have the baby, so i can be there for the baby as it grows.

There are successful egg freezing procedures available. You shouldn't put off treatment for this. And if chemo does make you infertile, adoption is always an option

I have undergone chemo for cancer treatment and am pregnant right now. There is no reason to freeze your eggs--chemo does not affect your eggs, since they are there since birth. She should definitely choose to have the treatment and have plenty of time to have healthy children after...

If it were possible to save my eggs before chemo, I would try, but not if it endangered my life. I know that harvesting eggs can take some time, and in many cases immediate treatment makes a huge difference in cancer survival.

In a smaller way, this was also an issue for me. I suffer from a chronic illness which requires that I take several medications. Also, pregnancy itself could cause issues in my illness. I consulted several specialists before going off birth control to make sure that I could safely bring a healthy child to term, without unduly suffering myself. I stopped some medications, not all of them, and I'm happy to say that I'm 35 weeks pregnant with a healthy baby girl. But if the doctors had told me that being pregnant would involve nine months of bedrest and severe pain and illness, I wouldn't have gotten pregnant. (Going on bedrest when you're already pregnant is different than knowing you will before you conceive. It just is, somehow.)

I love children and have since I was a little girl and there isn't anything else in this world that I want more than a family. If I had cancer though I would want treatment even if it meant that I couldn't have children anymore. I would not want my child to be in danger because I chose having a baby over treatment that could save my life and my baby's life. It is hard enough when a child loses a parent, but if it could be avoided then it should be. I know the feeling of wanting a biological child, but she could always adopt or have someone carry it for her.

of course i would get healthy first. and she can pay for fertility... help, like in vitro

If you start out your life as a mother with a selfish decision like having a pregnancy that could kill you, you will be shocked to learn that all of parenting is selfless and dedicated to another human. I agree with the previous comments-freeze your eggs, adopt or be a wonderful auntie. Being sick while pregnant, or having chemo with a new born, would be horrible!! It would be a hard situation to be in but 37 or 38 isn't too old to start motherhood. I wish her the best, beat that cancer girl.

I guess it all wound up actually being a rumor since I just read that she had a double mastectomy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26276282/

This is a crappy rumor about someone's personal decisions.