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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really. Shut up. Unless you are her oncologist, you have no idea WTf you are saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

By the time she was out of the first trimester, she was already brain dead or very close to it. Also, chemotherapy differs for every type of cancer. The meds that can be used in pregnancy may not have been able to treat brain cancer, especially since they need to cross the blood brain barrier. There is no phase of pregnancy where those drugs can be used safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really. Shut up. Unless you are her oncologist, you have no idea WTf you are saying.

+1
There are no drugs that could have treated her cancer, pregnant or not. The poor lady was doomed to a fast death regardless of her pregnancy or treatment regimen.

[Anonymous]

So the husband sold his business to his brother and has no income now? Why can't his family help out more, geez!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really. Shut up. Unless you are her oncologist, you have no idea WTf you are saying.

The stories all say "she rejected chemo" but don't explain why. It's a valid question to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really. Shut up. Unless you are her oncologist, you have no idea WTf you are saying.

The stories all say "she rejected chemo" but don't explain why. It's a valid question to ask.

The story was clear that she needed to abort the pregnancy to proceed with chemotherapy. Now your valid question is answered.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

We don't know the whole story. I assume Dad sold his business so he could get her and the kids on medicaid with no income if they had little in assets as that baby will need lots of care. Then, he can go work for his brother or take the business back later on.

If she had no chance to live except more than a year, personally even for my kids sake, I'd rather have a quicker death than watch me suffer. Its hard to say without knowing about her cancer or their family. If I was given a year to live and was suffering, I'd rather it be over quickly than suffer through treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don't know the whole story. I assume Dad sold his business so he could get her and the kids on medicaid with no income if they had little in assets as that baby will need lots of care. Then, he can go work for his brother or take the business back later on.

If she had no chance to live except more than a year, personally even for my kids sake, I'd rather have a quicker death than watch me suffer. Its hard to say without knowing about her cancer or their family. If I was given a year to live and was suffering, I'd rather it be over quickly than suffer through treatment.

He sold the business 4 years ago and has had no income since. He's had more than one new baby since selling the business.

[Anonymous]

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

Just more prolife fodder.

The women is not a hero.

Why are pro-choice women so angry at her choice?

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wouldn't have put it so bluntly, but I agree. Also, please get life insurance, people. It's important, and stay-at-home moms need it too. This story is Exhibit A.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why are pro-choice women so angry at her choice?

I've noticed this with every women's issue- abortion, sexuality, working, pregnancy, raising kids. The ones who proclaim to be the most feminist are the ones most critical of women who make different choices than they do. With my kids, it totally amazed me how many women would fight for my right for an abortion but insisted I had no rights over my breasts and MUST use them for breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

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???

[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.

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.