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?

Their GoFundMe has already accrued over 100K. And their church (Resurrection Life Church, a nondenominational megachurch) will hopefully step in. Lord knows they have the funds to do so. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/04/feds_press_church_to_return_30.html

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?

Yeah, I question anyone's decision that results in six motherless children, a micro-preemie, a jobless father and a mountain of medical debt. YMMV.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:Unbelievably selfish. Now she is responsible for leaving six motherless children whereas had she terminated, her other five might have had more several years with her.

Or at least their dad could have focused on them and their grief rather than living hours away tending to a micro preemie. Who is caring for the other children who just buried their mother?

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.

+1. Also, "pro life fodder" as another PP put it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a sad story, on so many levels. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/09/10/she-rejected-chemotherapy-and-chose-to-die-of-cancer-so-she-could-give-birth-to-her-child/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_tyh-cancermom-6pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7779813c045c

This is a non story.

When you refuse cancer treatment you die 100% of the time.

That was her choice. She is no more or less special than the hundreds of people who also refuse treatment.

+1000 my neighbor chose not to get treated for his lymphoma. He died. He left behind a wife and kids. That was sad too ,but not a news story. People only care about this because of the micropreemie. When are we going to value women for more than the product of their uterus.

Anonymous wrote:Unbelievably selfish. Now she is responsible for leaving six motherless children whereas had she terminated, her other five might have had more several years with her.

My mother died when I was 4 so I know what it is like to grow up without a mother.

She was not likely to get several more years with that diagnosis.

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.

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.

What a sick and hateful statement to make.

NP here. It's not hateful it's the truth. This women isn't a hero. It's a news story just to stir prolife/prochoice debate period. She made her choice and she dies. This story is no more significant than any other case where a patient refuses treatment and dies earlier as a result. This story isn't any sadder than any other family that loses a parent to cancer.

Unbelievably selfish. Now she is responsible for leaving six motherless children whereas had she terminated, her other five might have had more several years with her.

My mother died when I was 4 so I know what it is like to grow up without a mother.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the "pro-choice" women who condemn - and hatefully - any woman's choice that would not be their choice: You shed so much light, and I thank you for your honesty. Anonymous insights are priceless.

Lots of pro-choice posters here who validate her choice. Don't overlook them.

And those who disagree say so thoughtfully and why--not hatefully.

The family made their story public--it's up for discussion.

I know people who knew this woman. That part of Michigan is very tight -- she comes from a large family active in their church. I'm sure they're getting a lot of support from that community, and I'm sure knowing that they would was a factor in their decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.

She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.

That wasn't her choice. You cannot go through GBM treatment while pregnant. You think she wouldn't have if that had been a choice? WTF?

Well I guess we have to have that conversation, don't we? There have been pregnant GMB patients who have gotten chemo and radiation.

No we don't. None of your effing business.

Of course it's public business now -- it's in the news, and it's a logical question that any reporter should have asked: why did she refuse treatment? there are plenty of case reports of pregnant mothers with cancer getting chemo, and the impact not being that negative on the fetus if it's after the first trimester. It's just bad reporting not to ask that question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

GBM is a death sentence. She likely would have died very quickly anyway. Virtually no one lives the 5 years that the article quoted.

She might have had a healthier pregnancy and overall healthier baby if she got treatment. As it is, she seemed to have chosen the worst possible health outcomes for herself and her child.

That wasn't her choice. You cannot go through GBM treatment while pregnant. You think she wouldn't have if that had been a choice? WTF?

Well I guess we have to have that conversation, don't we? There have been pregnant GMB patients who have gotten chemo and radiation.

No we don't. None of your effing business.