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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lost my mom to cancer at 15 and would have given the world to have one more month, one more week, even one more good day with her.

I empathize, but it's not you that's most important. It's the degree of suffering and pain of the patient that's most important. At some point, pain killers don't cut it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found out I had cancer while pregnant. I opted for an aggressive surgery while still pregnant ("essentially cut the cancer out") and then as soon as my child was born, I did chemo. It is an AWFUL position to be in. Don't judge.

Here is to your continued good health.

+1 I hope you stay healthy, PP.

And I have to think that this pregnancy probably wasn't your sixth child? Part of the calculus with such a decision must involve thinking about the kids born already--I can't think how adding a micro-premie to a newly single parent household of five kids helped anyone. This situation sounds like pro-life ideology stretched to an extreme, not thinking about all the lives involved.

Yes, this. The thought of the two-year-old breaks my heart. Another year or two with his or her mother would have made all the difference for this child.

I Had a family member who lost his motyer to aggressive cancer as a preschooler.

spending extra time with his mom while she was suffering with advanced stage cancer did not make all the difference for him. It was awful and he completely disconnected and separated from him mom long before she moved in to final stages and passed.

You are chasing an ideal if you think that a small child who cannot understand the diagnosis spending extra time with a parent dying from andvanced stage cancer makes a positive difference in that child's life. It is horrific for the kids. Most likely her two year old would not have spent much more additional, positive time with mom whether or not mom stayed pregnant.

I am guessing that for you to think this you perhaps have not been through someone dying of aggressive cancer. Their lives do not end tye way that movies portray it.

[Anonymous]

I am as pro choice as they come but may have done the same thing bc honestly I've seen people with this cancer and I might not opt for treatment no matter what. The extra time isn't always that great.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what drives the family to make such stories public. I knew a mom who did the same, 4 kids, but no way her family would allow media into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should have gotten treatment and stayed pregnant. As it is, she's dead years sooner than she might have been, and she leaves behind a sick micro-preemie and 5 other young kids.

GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.

She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lost my mom to cancer at 15 and would have given the world to have one more month, one more week, even one more good day with her.

I understand because I lost my mom to cancer at 30 and I would've, too. But for my mom, there were no GOOD days. She opted not to receive any treatment and I let her go, as much as it hurt me, because seeing her suffer the way she did was horrific. I wouldn't have done a single thing to have one more BAD day with my mom. And that is often all there is left.

[Anonymous]

I'm as pro-choice as they get. Part of being pro-choice is recognizing people will make a different choice than you. This was a private decision, made based on their priorities, circumstances, and between husband and wife. What you or I or anyone else would have done is irrelevant. She made the decision right for her and her values and her family.

It's sad all around. Even if she had chosen differently, it's not like she would be living some dream existence with her diagnosis.

Leave the judgment behind.

[Anonymous]

All the "pro-choice" women who condemn - and hatefully - any woman's choice that would not be their choice: You shed so much light, and I thank you for your honesty. Anonymous insights are priceless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the "pro-choice" women who condemn - and hatefully - any woman's choice that would not be their choice: You shed so much light, and I thank you for your honesty. Anonymous insights are priceless.

Lots of pro-choice posters here who validate her choice. Don't overlook them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm as pro-choice as they get. Part of being pro-choice is recognizing people will make a different choice than you. This was a private decision, made based on their priorities, circumstances, and between husband and wife. What you or I or anyone else would have done is irrelevant. She made the decision right for her and her values and her family.

It's sad all around. Even if she had chosen differently, it's not like she would be living some dream existence with her diagnosis.

Leave the judgment behind.

It's a discussion board. It's okay for people to discuss what they think about this newspaper article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should have gotten treatment and stayed pregnant. As it is, she's dead years sooner than she might have been, and she leaves behind a sick micro-preemie and 5 other young kids.

GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.

She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.

That wasn't her choice. You cannot go through GBM treatment while pregnant. You think she wouldn't have if that had been a choice? WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should have gotten treatment and stayed pregnant. As it is, she's dead years sooner than she might have been, and she leaves behind a sick micro-preemie and 5 other young kids.

GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.

She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.

That wasn't her choice. You cannot go through GBM treatment while pregnant. You think she wouldn't have if that had been a choice? WTF?

Well I guess we have to have that conversation, don't we? There have been pregnant GMB patients who have gotten chemo and radiation.

[Anonymous]

Personally I think it's gross to keep a brain dead woman alive as an incubator. God's will was for her to die, and the baby, too.

[Anonymous]

Sucks for the 18 and 16 year olds. Who are no doubt doing all the work at home for the other kids. What a crappy life.