From cnn.com:
[She] found out she had leukemia when she became pregnant. She decided to have the child, and refused to undergo chemotherapy… [read full article]
The article goes on to explain that the mother and her husband already had two children and was nine weeks pregnant with her third when she found out she had leukemia. She refused chemotherapy treatment in the hopes of getting a cord blood transplant after she gave birth. But she developed an infection and died on April third. The baby, a girl named Sarah, was four months old at the time of her death.
If you were in this woman’s shoes, what would you have done?
If I were in this woman’s shoes, I would think long and hard and consult with as many medical professionals as possible. Could the cancer treatment wait until after the birth? Or would the risk of the cancer advancing be too great? I would not want to abort a child, but I would not want to leave my husband a widower and my current, already born and living children without a mother.
My name is Jenn, and I'm 27 years old. I'm happily married to my best friend and soulmate, Daniel. Together we have a six year old daughter named 
Name: Alyssa
Name: Ryan
I know that TV ≠ real life, and they’re not really even comparable, but this reminded me of an episode of Grey’s Anatomy (called Save Me) where the woman refuses to treat her cancer because of her baby. I honestly think I would treat myself. I know it sounds selfish, but like you said, I wouldn’t want to leave my husband and children without a big part of their family. For some reason, in my mind, the baby wasn’t meant to be in that case. There’s always another chance to get pregnant, but there’s only one shot of keeping yourself alive to see that chance.