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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Gofundme.

Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who think she should have undergone treatment: Have you been through that process with a loved one?

I have, and it's brutal (and in my mom's case, only bought her three not-good months).

I'm 100% percent pro-choice and don't question this woman's decision. At all.

I kind of question the dad's decision-making though. He's unemployed with a sick wife and 5 kids - how is he planning to take care of everyone?

What, exactly, do you think he should have done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

Keeping your brain-dead, skull-less wife alive on life support to incubate the fetus wasn't a dramatic choice?!!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

Keeping your brain-dead, skull-less wife alive on life support to incubate the fetus wasn't a dramatic choice?!!?!?

Not anymore than keeping her barely alive and suffering through chemo.

[Anonymous]

Can someone tell me why this is news?

Here's my take: It's news because it fits the sexist, patriarchal mother role that we're all supposed to strive for. Where we don't take care of our selves in service of others all the frickin' time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good job, bringing a special needs baby into the world with five other kids and a dad with no job. Plus thousands of dollars in medical bills that have him begging on GoFundMe.

I feel confident given the choice she would have stuck around to enjoy life with her kids and husband.

This was a death sentence either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am glad she got to chose and I respect her choice. But man I feel bad for the dad. 6 kids and the preemie will most likely have health problems. That is a lot to put on one person. I hope the kids get therapy. It has gotta to hard knowing your mom died earlier due to the new baby. Because eventually the kids are going to get old enough to read this article.

Several of their kids are old enough to read it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who think she should have undergone treatment: Have you been through that process with a loved one?

I have, and it's brutal (and in my mom's case, only bought her three not-good months).

I'm 100% percent pro-choice and don't question this woman's decision. At all.

I kind of question the dad's decision-making though. He's unemployed with a sick wife and 5 kids - how is he planning to take care of everyone?

What, exactly, do you think he should have done?

Had a vasectomy after the third or fourth kid that they couldn't afford.

[Anonymous]

Cancer researcher here, glioblastoma? Pancreatic cancer?

Yup, I'd cash in my life insurance and travel. Some cancers are virtually untreatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

Keeping your brain-dead, skull-less wife alive on life support to incubate the fetus wasn't a dramatic choice?!!?!?

Not anymore than keeping her barely alive and suffering through chemo.

again, chemo could have kept her alive longer and the baby gestating longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

Keeping your brain-dead, skull-less wife alive on life support to incubate the fetus wasn't a dramatic choice?!!?!?

Not anymore than keeping her barely alive and suffering through chemo.

again, chemo could have kept her alive longer and the baby gestating longer.

She couldn't have done the chemo while pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

Keeping your brain-dead, skull-less wife alive on life support to incubate the fetus wasn't a dramatic choice?!!?!?

Not anymore than keeping her barely alive and suffering through chemo.

again, chemo could have kept her alive longer and the baby gestating longer.

You are just making stuff up. Be quiet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her tumor grew back twice in a 3 month period. It was obviously an extremely aggressive cancer. There really is no way she had years left if she'd taken the treatment. At most, the treatment would have bought her a very sickly month or two.

Exactly. It wasn't that dramatic of a choice; it was a pragmatic plan.

Keeping your brain-dead, skull-less wife alive on life support to incubate the fetus wasn't a dramatic choice?!!?!?

Not anymore than keeping her barely alive and suffering through chemo.

again, chemo could have kept her alive longer and the baby gestating longer.

She couldn't have done the chemo while pregnant.

YES she could have. There's research showing chemo and radiation after the first trimester are OK; and certainly preferable to a micro-preemie.