When Choice is Taken Away

Infants with Tay-Sachs don't live past 5 years old.

At ProchoiceTruth's site, one women submitted her story of when her choice was taken from her.
This woman, Paula, and her husband were both Tay-Sachs carriers. Though they were careful to take plenty of precautions, they still had an accidental pregnancy. After getting it checked by her doctor, he said that the child was fine, and did not have Tay-Sachs.

But the child did have Tay-Sachs. It seems that the doctor, being pro-life, opted not to tell her so that she wouldn't have an abortion. She could no longer properly decide if she wanted to have the child or not. That choice was taken from her.

If she had been given the proper knowledge, she would have had an abortion. But this also means that her son with Tay-Sachs would not be suffering slowly as he died. Her daughter (from another marriage) of seven years old would not be suffering depression from the misery of her brother. Her husband would not have killed himself, not being able to suffer seeing another family member die from Tay-Sachs. (His brother had died at 4 years old). Paula herself would not have had to quit her job and no longer help the economy in that aspect.

Does this kind of suffering need to happen? Or did this happen needlessly?

If you think I am exaggerating the pain of her son or her life, read her words yourself:

Elijah [her son] has is the worst of all. He’s blind, deaf, and paralyzed. He cannot eat, so he needs to be tube-fed. He has seizures every day and is severely brain damaged. He cannot laugh or smile. My baby boy has no quality of life. If I was made aware of his illness, I would have had an abortion. At only 12 weeks, he wouldn’t have felt a thing. Now pain is all he knows and feels. I expect him to pass away within the next few months.

In this situation, either choice is painful. But isn't the "pro-life" option the worst of two evils?

(Interesting to note that "pro-life" doesn't concern itself with "pro-quality-of-life," as it should.)