^ oh good. Did she really value the fetus enough for you now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GBM during pregnancy is very complicated.

Rando commenting on course of treatment without knowledge of her prognosis and disease progression is disgusting.

You know what, everyone who publicized this story (the family, the media, OP), opened the door to questions like this. You can't hold up stories like this like fairy tales, and then be mad when people want to actually dig down to the facts. As it is, this story leaves the impression that chemotherapy and pregnancy are incompatible; and that "good" moms will chose the fetus over their own health. When it turns out, that's not actually the case, because chemotherapy does not harm fetuses the way it was previously thought. If you don't think the complexities of cases like this should be discussed, then you shouldn't publicize them in the first place.

It is BS. "Chemo" is not one thing. It encompasses many different drugs. Some of which are safe for pregnancy and some of which are not. You don't know WTF you keep spouting off about. You have NO idea what her oncologist recommended for her type of disease progression. So be quiet.

I just looked through the facebook page, and it looks like she DID have chemo in july (in the 2nd trimester). So I guess we can stop discussing this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GBM during pregnancy is very complicated.

Rando commenting on course of treatment without knowledge of her prognosis and disease progression is disgusting.

You know what, everyone who publicized this story (the family, the media, OP), opened the door to questions like this. You can't hold up stories like this like fairy tales, and then be mad when people want to actually dig down to the facts. As it is, this story leaves the impression that chemotherapy and pregnancy are incompatible; and that "good" moms will chose the fetus over their own health. When it turns out, that's not actually the case, because chemotherapy does not harm fetuses the way it was previously thought. If you don't think the complexities of cases like this should be discussed, then you shouldn't publicize them in the first place.

It is BS. "Chemo" is not one thing. It encompasses many different drugs. Some of which are safe for pregnancy and some of which are not. You don't know WTF you keep spouting off about. You have NO idea what her oncologist recommended for her type of disease progression. So be quiet.

Anonymous wrote:GBM during pregnancy is very complicated.

Rando commenting on course of treatment without knowledge of her prognosis and disease progression is disgusting.

You know what, everyone who publicized this story (the family, the media, OP), opened the door to questions like this. You can't hold up stories like this like fairy tales, and then be mad when people want to actually dig down to the facts. As it is, this story leaves the impression that chemotherapy and pregnancy are incompatible; and that "good" moms will chose the fetus over their own health. When it turns out, that's not actually the case, because chemotherapy does not harm fetuses the way it was previously thought. If you don't think the complexities of cases like this should be discussed, then you shouldn't publicize them in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

And you really need to learn to read. I KNOW that chemo wouldn't have cured GBM. But it likely would have kept the mother alive long enough to deliver a baby with a chance of survival instead of a micro-preemie.

You have no way of knowing that. So just stop. It is really gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Chemo is not effective for GBM. You really aren't getting this. Are you always like this?

Argh. I KNOW that chemo for GBM does not cure it, but it does extend life. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/283252-treatment

It's a perfectly reasonable and understandable choice to skip chemo for GBM, given the costs and benefits. But the calculus was different for this mother: she CHOSE to forgo the possibility of truly life-exending treatment (the experimental regimen) for the fetus,which would have had to be terminated. But then by also declining conventional chemo (for unclear reasons), she basically decided that the fetus wouldn't have any chance a healthy life. She did not appear to truly prioritize the fetus. She prioritized not having to have an abortion.

So? That's her choice. Plenty of people carry to term with fetuses they know will die from various trisomies or other issues. The point of having a choice is that they get to choose, whether that's to abort, carry to term, do your best to carry to term while knowing you or the baby may not make it, whatever. Just because you or I might have made a different choice doesn't give us any say in her choice.

And if the treatment is as awful as other PPs have described, I can understand skipping it, pregnant or not. You can't control every outcome. She could have died earlier or she could have held on longer, and either would have affected the baby differently. For that matter you don't know how treatment would have affected the baby. Give it a rest. Unless you're directly paying the family's medical costs, which I highly doubt, it's none of your business.

GBM during pregnancy is very complicated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727635/

Rando commenting on course of treatment without knowledge of her prognosis and disease progression is disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

And you really need to learn to read. I KNOW that chemo wouldn't have cured GBM. But it likely would have kept the mother alive long enough to deliver a baby with a chance of survival instead of a micro-preemie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Chemo is not effective for GBM. You really aren't getting this. Are you always like this?

Argh. I KNOW that chemo for GBM does not cure it, but it does extend life. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/283252-treatment

It's a perfectly reasonable and understandable choice to skip chemo for GBM, given the costs and benefits. But the calculus was different for this mother: she CHOSE to forgo the possibility of truly life-exending treatment (the experimental regimen) for the fetus,which would have had to be terminated. But then by also declining conventional chemo (for unclear reasons), she basically decided that the fetus wouldn't have any chance a healthy life. She did not appear to truly prioritize the fetus. She prioritized not having to have an abortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Chemo is not effective for GBM. You really aren't getting this. Are you always like this?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm so sorry, PP. We've been through the hell of GBS once, and it was just as you described - the idea of going through it again is just devastating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This makes me wonder if there is a connection to heavy cell phone usage.

I am confused. Do you have some reason to believe that Phillies players use phones at a higher rate than other teams? Or that Beau Biden used it more than other people?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This makes me wonder if there is a connection to heavy cell phone usage.