Wyoming mom of 5 who refused cancer treatment to have 6th child has passed away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate these stories and wish they'd stop publizing them.

Just more prolife fodder.

The women is not a hero.

What a sick and hateful statement to make.

NP here. It's not hateful it's the truth. This women isn't a hero. It's a news story just to stir prolife/prochoice debate period. She made her choice and she dies. This story is no more significant than any other case where a patient refuses treatment and dies earlier as a result. This story isn't any sadder than any other family that loses a parent to cancer.

I totally agree. I fully support her right to choose. Treatment or no treatment, it's a shitty choice any way you look at it. But, keeping her alive to be an incubator for a micro-preemie? That's just wrong on so many levels. Yet, because this feeds into the 'prolife narrative, she and her husband are 'heroes'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

Not entirely true. The chemo drugs have changed in the last 10 years. They buy a bit more time (not tons more though)

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it was her choice; I can't believe anything else, being staunchly pro-choice myself.

I think she's chosen her faith above her family, though. Five kids, plus a preemie, without a mother now. Damn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most surprising part of this story for me is the fact that this woman managed to get knocked up - -again -- a couple of weeks after having major brain surgery (If the newspaper's timeline of events is true). Question is, didn't she already know at that point that she had a life-threatening, at best, and terminal, at worst, disease? Was using a condom such an imposition on her super religious husband?

I do agree with the poster above that "God's plan" for her - and her child that she, for whatever reason, decided to conceive - was to die. Has anyone thought what's going to happen to a micro-preemie aptly named Life? Physical disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, possibly life in a wheelchair. And I'm not even talking about medical bills.

No, that woman, and her now widower, were not any sort of heroes. You don't make another baby knowing you have 12 months to live. WTF???

She found out she was 8 weeks pregnant less than a month after her first surgery. She was already pregnant, but it possibly didn't show up on a pre-op pregnancy test (if one was even done).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most surprising part of this story for me is the fact that this woman managed to get knocked up - -again -- a couple of weeks after having major brain surgery (If the newspaper's timeline of events is true). Question is, didn't she already know at that point that she had a life-threatening, at best, and terminal, at worst, disease? Was using a condom such an imposition on her super religious husband?

I do agree with the poster above that "God's plan" for her - and her child that she, for whatever reason, decided to conceive - was to die. Has anyone thought what's going to happen to a micro-preemie aptly named Life? Physical disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, possibly life in a wheelchair. And I'm not even talking about medical bills.

No, that woman, and her now widower, were not any sort of heroes. You don't make another baby knowing you have 12 months to live. WTF???

She was already pregnant at the time of diagnosis. Do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

This is true. And the course of the illness is truly wretched - her quality of life for the 18 months or so she would've lived with it, even with treatment, would be very difficult.

This is the disease that the woman who fought for the right to end one's own life had - she moved out west so she could legally end her life instead of suffering through her remaining months with GBS.

It's such an awful disease - there needs to be more research and funding to find a cure, or an effective treatment.

The point is, once she made the decision to keep the baby, she was morally obligated to also take the chemo, if it promised to help extend her life to keep the baby from being delivered prematurely. There's a lot of research now indicating that chemo is OK outside of the 1st trimester. I haven't seen any articles addressing this aspect.

What? No. She decided to try to keep going. She could have died earlier and baby too. Or later. She was entitled to keep the pregnancy and try any treatment or lack thereof she and her doctor felt best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only skimmed the article but it said that with treatment she could live 5 years with glioblastoma. The percentage of people who live 5 years with that kind of brain cancer is in the single digits, even with treatment. The typical survival time after diagnosis is about a year.

A lot of women find out they have cancer while pregnant, since pregnancy suppresses the immune system causing latent cancer to grow. Some women choose to abort and treat the cancer, but I understand completely if one chooses not to, especially with a cancer that has dismal survival rates.

FWIW, this is the same type of brain cancer that John McCain has, and that killed Ted Kennedy.

And beau Biden and weird enough a handful of philadelphia Phillies baseball players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

Not entirely true. The chemo drugs have changed in the last 10 years. They buy a bit more time (not tons more though)

Really? It's still temador and now avistan, with unwelcome side effects. Temador was experimental 15 yrs ago and now standard as is radiation. I lost two family members to GBM, 12 yrs apart. Believe me, not much has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

Not entirely true. The chemo drugs have changed in the last 10 years. They buy a bit more time (not tons more though)

Really? It's still temador and now avistan, with unwelcome side effects. Temador was experimental 15 yrs ago and now standard as is radiation. I lost two family members to GBM, 12 yrs apart. Believe me, not much has changed.

I'm so sorry, PP. Were they biologically related to each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

This is true. And the course of the illness is truly wretched - her quality of life for the 18 months or so she would've lived with it, even with treatment, would be very difficult.

This is the disease that the woman who fought for the right to end one's own life had - she moved out west so she could legally end her life instead of suffering through her remaining months with GBS.

It's such an awful disease - there needs to be more research and funding to find a cure, or an effective treatment.

The point is, once she made the decision to keep the baby, she was morally obligated to also take the chemo, if it promised to help extend her life to keep the baby from being delivered prematurely. There's a lot of research now indicating that chemo is OK outside of the 1st trimester. I haven't seen any articles addressing this aspect.

What? No. She decided to try to keep going. She could have died earlier and baby too. Or later. She was entitled to keep the pregnancy and try any treatment or lack thereof she and her doctor felt best.

Yes, legally entitled. Morally, I think she was obliged to take chemo to try to keep the baby from extreme prematurity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

This is true. And the course of the illness is truly wretched - her quality of life for the 18 months or so she would've lived with it, even with treatment, would be very difficult.

This is the disease that the woman who fought for the right to end one's own life had - she moved out west so she could legally end her life instead of suffering through her remaining months with GBS.

It's such an awful disease - there needs to be more research and funding to find a cure, or an effective treatment.

The point is, once she made the decision to keep the baby, she was morally obligated to also take the chemo, if it promised to help extend her life to keep the baby from being delivered prematurely. There's a lot of research now indicating that chemo is OK outside of the 1st trimester. I haven't seen any articles addressing this aspect.

What? No. She decided to try to keep going. She could have died earlier and baby too. Or later. She was entitled to keep the pregnancy and try any treatment or lack thereof she and her doctor felt best.

Yes, legally entitled. Morally, I think she was obliged to take chemo to try to keep the baby from extreme prematurity.

As explained in the article, the chemo would have killed the fetus. She had to choose: chemo or baby. Having both was not an option. You can't expose a fetus to drugs that cross the blood brain barrier, especially ones that are designed to kill fast growing cells.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chemo doesn't work, that's probably why. Not much has changed in treating GBM in the last 15 yrs. a lot of trials that don't do more than the standard crappy treatments. You don't know how operable and location of the tumor(s). If you've never seen what GBM does to someone, you have no idea what happens to the patient. Your brain controls EVERYTHING so anything foreign up there causes issues. Gbm cells double every 2 weeks and there's millions of cells that create a tumor. It truly is a death sentence.

Not entirely true. The chemo drugs have changed in the last 10 years. They buy a bit more time (not tons more though)

Really? It's still temador and now avistan, with unwelcome side effects. Temador was experimental 15 yrs ago and now standard as is radiation. I lost two family members to GBM, 12 yrs apart. Believe me, not much has changed.

I'm so sorry, PP. Were they biologically related to each other?

Yes, this is my immediate family. One parent and one sibling. It pisses me off people talking about it like brain cancer is a walk in the park for the patient. Both lost the ability to walk and talk. Not a great quality of life. Like I said, your brain controls everything. The treatments are harsh (fry your brain with radiation and be nauseous from chemo). Multiple surgeries when the treatments stop working. It's not a pretty process. Most cancer patients die from when their cancer metatizes to the brain. It's virtually impossible to stop GBM. I have no opinion on this lady's plight. I want people to realize GBM is no walk in the park.

[Anonymous]

According to their Facebook page, the newborn is unlikely to survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to their Facebook page, the newborn is unlikely to survive.

They made great efforts. I hope peace is found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most surprising part of this story for me is the fact that this woman managed to get knocked up - -again -- a couple of weeks after having major brain surgery (If the newspaper's timeline of events is true). Question is, didn't she already know at that point that she had a life-threatening, at best, and terminal, at worst, disease? Was using a condom such an imposition on her super religious husband?

I do agree with the poster above that "God's plan" for her - and her child that she, for whatever reason, decided to conceive - was to die. Has anyone thought what's going to happen to a micro-preemie aptly named Life? Physical disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, possibly life in a wheelchair. And I'm not even talking about medical bills.

No, that woman, and her now widower, were not any sort of heroes. You don't make another baby knowing you have 12 months to live. WTF???

This - the bolded - is unbelievable. Women in ALL KINDS of inopportune situations end up getting pregnant ALL the time. And pro-choicers will defend their poor choices or poor planning ad nauseum, and condemn anyone who would dare to judge a situation that is not their own. "Condoms break!" they said. Right? Well, believe it or not, it works the same way in all women - those you defend for getting pregnant when it would be better if they didn't, and those you condemn for getting pregnant when it would be better if they didn't. Free choice is free choice. It's not only a good thing when when you think it's the right choice.