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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

No, the article did NOT say chemo would have killed the fetus. The articles say she was barred from a clinical trial due to pregnancy. They say nothing at all about non-experiemental chemo.  Research now pretty convincingly shows chemo in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters is safe. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5044906/

Maybe there are other reasons she decline chemo -- we'll never know because the reporting on this story is so crappy.

It just pisses me off because these stories leave the impression that women must chose between chemo and abortion, which isn't true. [/quote]

Read this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530825/

You keep going on and on about chemo. GBM is terrible.  Surgery, radiation and chemo do virtually nothing. Adjuvant and second line treatments aren't effective. People who choose treatment experience terrible side effects that are debilitating and incredibly harmful in the hopes that they will be in that small % who survive for a bit longer. Mean time of survival with treatment is often measured in weeks.

You really need to stop. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics