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.
Anonymous wrote:I'm of course glad she had the ability to choose.
This one is complicated to me, since the type of cancer she had was so deadly and the prognosis so poor. I'm not sure when she discovered the pregnancy, but I can certainly imagine feeling like a marginal extension of my own life (1-2 years, whilst on treatment, maybe... I think the trial she was accepted into was an immunotherapy one) might not be worth the cost, especially since she is devoutly pro-life.
Had it been a different kind of cancer, I would have different feelings. But GBM is really terrible.
Anonymous wrote:If she had aborted she would have died much sooner because they wouldn't have kept her on life support for so long just to grow the baby.
Anonymous wrote:I am very pro-choice, but I completely understand when a woman chooses not to have an abortion, even if the pregnancy is threatening her own life. It's her life, she gets to choose.
Anonymous wrote:I am very pro-choice, but I completely understand when a woman chooses not to have an abortion, even if the pregnancy is threatening her own life. It's her life, she gets to choose.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That is another argument for another thread. This thread is about whether to abort or treat a deadly cancer. Your argument is about whether to have a lot of children if you can't afford them. Two completely different issues.
Nobody lives 5 years with glioblastoma. She had a year at most.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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.
That is another argument for another thread. This thread is about whether to abort or treat a deadly cancer. Your argument is about whether to have a lot of children if you can't afford them. Two completely different issues.
Nobody lives 5 years with glioblastoma. She had a year at most.