Emotional goodbye for young Italian mother who died for unborn child

From: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Hundreds of Italians gathered at the Church of St. Francisca Romana in Rome on June 16 for the funeral Mass of Chiara Corbella, a young Catholic woman who died after postponing her cancer treatments in order to protect her unborn child.

At 28 years of age, Chiara was happily married to Enrico Petrillo. They had already suffered the loss of two children in recent years who died from birth defects. The couple became popular speakers at pro-life events, in which they shared their testimony about the few minutes they were able to spend with their children, David and Maria, before they died.

In 2010, Chiara became pregnant for the third time, and according to doctors the child was developing normally. However, Chiara was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer and was advised to begin receiving treatment that would have posed a risk to her pregnancy.

Chiara decided to protect the baby – named Francisco –  and opted to forgo treatment until after his birth, which took place on May 30, 2011.

Her cancer quickly progressed and eventually she lost sight in one eye. After a year-long battle Chiara died on June 13, surrounded by her loved ones and convinced that she would be reunited with her two children in heaven.

“I am going to heaven to take care of Maria and David, you stay here with Dad. I will pray for you,” Chiara said in a letter for Francisco that she wrote one week before her death.

The funeral Mass was celebrated by the Vicar General of Rome, Cardinal Agostino Vallini, who recalled Chiara as “the second Gianna Beretta,” the 20th century saint who sacrificed her life in similar circumstances to save her unborn baby.

Chiara’s spiritual director, Father Vito, delivered the homily and remembered Chiara as a young woman who chose to risk her own life in order to be an example to other pregnant women, “a testimony that could save so many people,” he said.

Chiara’s husband, Enrico, said he experienced “a story of love on the cross.” Speaking to Vatican Radio, he said that they learned from their three children that there is no difference in a life that lasts 30 minutes or 100 years.

“It was wonderful to discover this love that grew more and more in the face of so many problems,” he said.

“We grew more and more in love with each other and Jesus. We were never disappointed by this love, and for this reason, we never lost time, even though those around us said, 'Wait, don’t be in a hurry to have another child,'” Enrico said.

The world today encourages people to make wrong choices about the unborn, the sick and the elderly, he noted, “but the Lord responds with stories like ours.”

“We are the ones who like to philosophize about life, about who created it, and therefore, in the end, we confuse ourselves in wanting to become the owners of life and to escape from the cross the Lord gives us,” he continued.

“The truth is that this cross – if you embrace it with Christ – ceases to be as ugly as it looks. If you trust in him, you discover that this fire, this cross, does not burn, and that peace can be found in suffering and joy in death,” Enrico explained.

“I spent a lot of time this year reflecting on this phrase from the Gospel that says the Lord gives a cross that is sweet and a burden that is light. When I would look at Chiara when she was about to die, I obviously became very upset. But I mustered the courage and a few hours before – it was about eight in the morning, Chiara died at noon – I asked her.

I said: 'But Chiara, my love, is this cross really sweet, like the Lord says? She looked at me and she smiled, and in a soft voice she said, 'Yes, Enrico, it is very sweet.' In this sense, the entire family didn’t see Chiara die peacefully, but happily, which is totally different,” Ernico said.

When his son grows up, he added, he will tell him “how beautiful it is to let oneself be loved by God, because if you feel loved you can do anything,” and this is “the most important thing in life: to let yourself be loved in order to love and die happy.”

“I will tell him that this is what his mother, Chiara, did. She allowed herself to be loved, and in a certain sense, I think she loved everyone in this way. I feel her more alive than ever. To be able to see her die happy was to me a challenge to death.”

Breast Cancer? The FDA BANS AVASTIN

With all the attention Breast Cancer Prevention gets you would think this decision as reported below would be unlikely. But I guess we should get used to rationing.

From Investors Business Daily: ObamaCare Rationing Begins

Medicine: The FDA has reversed its approval of a widely used cancer drug approved in Europe to treat breast cancer on the grounds it doesn't provide a "sufficient" benefit. Let the terminally ill and their doctors decide.

One of the blessings of blocking the omnibus spending bill was that it included $1 billion for the implementation of ObamaCare.

Yet the first effects are still being felt, the latest being the Food and Drug Administration's revoking of regulatory approval of Avastin to treat late-stage breast cancer.

The reason given by the FDA was that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." What risk? These women are dying.
The drug buys them precious time, and the only risk they face is from an FDA saying "pull the plug."
On the same day the FDA channeled Dr. Kevorkian, its European counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, issued a statement approving Avastin for metastatic breast cancer.

Benefits of the drug, it said, "continue to outweigh the risks, because the available data have overwhelmingly shown to prolong progression-free survival of breast cancer patients without a negative effect on the overall survival."

So what say you, FDA? An agency overseeing the cost-conscious, government-run health care systems in the European Union says Avastin does provide sufficient benefit at little risk to the patient.

The annual cost, however, is a staggering $88,000 annually, and under ObamaCare cost trumps medical care. A prime decision is whether extending your life is worth the cost.

Consider that every year some 17,500 American women are prescribed Avastin by their practicing oncologists to treat their condition and prolong their life. Last October, the U.S. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, a group of 21 leading cancer centers that issues evidence-based medical guidelines, reaffirmed Avastin's efficacy in certain cases.

Avastin, the marketing name for the drug bevacizumab, is the world's best-selling cancer drug. Used primarily to treat colon cancer, it was first approved by the FDA in 2008 for treating breast cancer after it was found that by cutting the blood flow to tumors it slowed the progression of the disease. In some cases it has been shown to extend life as long as 20 months.

In a joint letter to the FDA and key lawmakers, two organizations — Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance— urge that Avastin continue to be approved for metastatic breast cancer patients and warn of the message this "decision sends about drug development for women with advanced breast cancer."

Breast cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death among American women, with 40,000 fatalities last year. Komen says the decision to use Avastin should be made between a woman and her doctor after a thoughtful consideration of the benefits and risks. We agree.

Avastin is still available on an off-label basis since it is still approved for colon, lung, kidney and brain cancer. But insurers are reluctant to cover drugs that are not FDA-approved. Medicare never does and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services are now headed by Dr. Donald Berwick, to whom we and others have referred as a one-man death panel.

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open," Berwick has said. For some that will mean the eyes closing forever.

Berwick has also opined: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'"

Like what? Tattoo-removal programs or Formosan subterranean termite research? This is your government, and it's here to help.