Chemotherapy and pregnancy - the dilemma.

political analyst

A woman who had an aggressive form of brain cancer died after giving birth to her daughter, who died 14 days later.

The mother decided not to undergo chemotherapy to protect her child's life.

http://www.independent.ie/life/premature-baby-dies-12-days-after-comatose-mother-with-brain-cancer-36158230.html

In a woman's body, there is some distance between the brain and the womb.
Couldn't chemotherapy have taken place without the radiation reaching the rest of her body, especially her womb?

Toots

Chemo goes into your veins, so it affects your entire body, there would be no way of doing it without harming the fetus unfortunately.

A Little Pony

No coming back from aggressive brain cancer.

Your heart has to break for the father. Losing his wife/partner and his child in the space of a couple of weeks.

annascott

Chemotherapy is usually given in either IV or tablet form and goes through the bloodstream therefore not localised.
It is radiotherapy that can be localised to minimise damage to other cells.

Available treatments for tumours are assessed individually per patient by a team of oncology experts. If there had been an easier way, I am sure they would have recommended it.

eviltwin

Her decision ultimately. I've known one or two cancer patients who refused chemotherapy for different reasons. My dad was one. Awful for the family left behind.

cython

political analyst wrote: »

A woman who had an aggressive form of brain cancer died after giving birth to her daughter, who died 14 days later.

The mother decided not to undergo chemotherapy to protect her child's life.

http://www.independent.ie/life/premature-baby-dies-12-days-after-comatose-mother-with-brain-cancer-36158230.html

In a woman's body, there is some distance between the brain and the womb.
Couldn't chemotherapy have taken place without the radiation reaching the rest of her body, especially her womb?

As other posters have said, chemo is a drug therapy involving either IVs or tablets and thus not localisation. It does not involve the use of radiation in and of itself, but may be used as a complementary treatment to radiotherapy, so frankly the bolded question makes no sense.

Lollipops23

I know it was her choice at the end of the day, but her poor kids. She potentially could have saved her life and let them keep their mother.

Chemo can't always save you, it can only buy a little extra time sometimes. Some decide to just enjoy the time they have, especially if they're facing aggressive chemo and all the side effects that brings. She probably felt the baby had more of a chance than she had, and I wouldn't second guess her decision, I'm sure she had the best advice. It's very sad for the family.

seamus

Her choice really. There's been quite a bit of criticism, primarily in regards to the fact that she had five other kids whose welfare she apparently didn't give any thought to.

If circumstances were different - if they had no children or she was much further along in her pregnancy - it would seem like a more obvious choice. But in this case it seemed like she put her principles above doing the right thing for her family.

And ultimately her principles have caused the worst possible scenario to occur. Now a family are grieving the loss of a mother who has died for nothing and a new child who never had a chance.

political analyst

cython wrote: »

As other posters have said, chemo is a drug therapy involving either IVs or tablets and thus not localisation. It does not involve the use of radiation in and of itself, but may be used as a complementary treatment to radiotherapy, so frankly the bolded question makes no sense.

To be honest, I just didn't know the difference between chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Her choice really. There's been quite a bit of criticism, primarily in regards to the fact that she had five other kids whose welfare she apparently didn't give any thought to.

If circumstances were different - if they had no children or she was much further along in her pregnancy - it would seem like a more obvious choice. But in this case it seemed like she put her principles above doing the right thing for her family.

And ultimately her principles have caused the worst possible scenario to occur. Now a family are grieving the loss of a mother who has died for nothing and a new child who never had a chance.

It's not fair to imply that she's a selfish mother. We are not in a position to judge her or the quality of her decision.

Leogirl

Actually chemo can be given during pregnancy, just not first trimester. But radiotherapy and some hormone drugs like tamoxifen for breast cancer are harmful to baby.

seamus

Candie wrote: »

It's not fair to imply that she's a selfish mother. We are not in a position to judge her or the quality of her decision.

I didn't imply she's selfish, but we are of course in a position to judge the quality of her decision; we can see the aftermath of it.

It's an absolute nightmare scenario for the family, and I'm not blaming her at all. She was human and like any of us would, made a personal decision that she believed was the right one.

wakka12

So sad the baby passed as well as the mother. Im sure the baby would have given a lot of peace of mind to the father, having a piece of his wife still around him, baby would have taken his mind off her death too.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I didn't imply she's selfish, but we are of course in a position to judge the quality of her decision; we can see the aftermath of it.

It's an absolute nightmare scenario for the family, and I'm not blaming her at all. She was human and like any of us would, made a personal decision that she believed was the right one.

We absolutely are not qualified, since we are not privy to any information other than the scant details of the article.

Cancer and cancer treatment is not predictable, we cannot know what kind of aggressive treatment she might have faced, how it may have impacted her quality of life, the guidance she was given on the viability of the pregnancy, or the possible time benefit she might have had as a best case scenario.

In the light of how little we know of the variables, I'll decline to judge any decision the family made.

ceadaoin.

seamus wrote: »

I didn't imply she's selfish,

Seems like you did tbh

But in this case it seemed like she put her principles above doing the right thing for her family.

I'm sure she would have been called selfish by others if she had terminated the pregnancy in favour of treatment too but at the end of the day, no one is in a position to judge without knowing all the facts

The_Valeyard

It's those kinds of horrible situations that people find themselves in that put our own petty problems into perspective

Roger Hassenforder

She'd 5 years "at best" if she underwent the chemo, but the foetus would die.
I'm not a rabid prolifer, but I can see how they made the choice.There's no right or wrong choice there I reckon.

It's a pity she didn't get to hold her baby before she died, she might have died a bit happier holding the new life.

_Dara_

Brain cancer is almost always fatal. I can understand why this lady decided to give her foetus the best shot she could. Treatment would likely not have saved her. Prolonged her life a bit perhaps but not saved her.

It's different if the treatment might be curative. Then a tough, agonising decision must be made.

endacl

political analyst wrote: »

To be honest, I just didn't know the difference between X and Y.

As an aside, that does tend to happen a lot when you start threads....

_Dara_

seamus wrote: »

Her choice really. There's been quite a bit of criticism, primarily in regards to the fact that she had five other kids whose welfare she apparently didn't give any thought to.

If circumstances were different - if they had no children or she was much further along in her pregnancy - it would seem like a more obvious choice. But in this case it seemed like she put her principles above doing the right thing for her family.

And ultimately her principles have caused the worst possible scenario to occur. Now a family are grieving the loss of a mother who has died for nothing and a new child who never had a chance.

Glioblastoma multiforme is something you will die of. Full stop. This isn't about principles. With or without treatment, she was going to die from her illness and this particular one is aggressive so she likely wouldn't have got very long even with treatment. With this knowledge, it's very understandable that she decided to give her foetus a chance.

kylith

_Dara_ wrote: »

Glioblastoma multiforme is something you will die of. Full stop. This isn't about principles. With or without treatment, she was going to die from her illness and this particular one is aggressive so she likely wouldn't have got very long even with treatment. With this knowledge, it's very understandable that she decided to give her foetus a chance.

But she could have had 5 years longer with the children she had.

The entire thing is very sad, but I'm glad she had the choice.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

But she could have had 5 years longer with the children she had.

The entire thing is very sad, but I'm glad she had the choice.

That was the original prognosis, after she had surgery to remove the first tumor. A month later, her tumor returned. We have no indication of what her prognosis was had she undergone the chemo.

_Dara_

kylith wrote: »

But she could have had 5 years longer with the children she had.

Sadly with that particular cancer, you'd be an outlier to make it five years or even more than two years. It's the most aggressive brain tumour of them all. And even if you did get more than two years, because it's brain cancer, your cognitive function could be severely affected depending on where in the brain it is. She and her oncologists would surely have discussed all this in detail and made an educated decision based on what they knew about her tumour's histology.

Outlaw Pete

What a woman.

TheZenMonkey

wakka12 wrote: »

So sad the baby passed as well as the mother. Im sure the baby would have given a lot of peace of mind to the father, having a piece of his wife still around him, baby would have taken his mind off her death too.

He still has six kids. They could have had more quality time with their mother.

The world doesn't need families with seven kids. The world needs families where the existing kids believe their mother loves them enough to give them what they need before she goes.

I could be more understanding if they hadn't had any kids yet, or only one. As it is, all I can think of is those kids growing up understanding that their mother chose to be sick and in terrible, terrible pain before becoming an incubator in a coma, rather than spend her remaining time giving them all the love she had.

One eyed Jack

TheZenMonkey wrote: »

I could be more understanding if they hadn't had any kids yet, or only one. As it is, all I can think of is those kids growing up understanding that their mother chose to be sick and in terrible, terrible pain before becoming an incubator in a coma, rather than spend her remaining time giving them all the love she had.

Having seen similar circumstances twice, and knowing both families well, your thinking is only one of many possibilities. In the circumstances I was aware of, the community they lived in meant the children grew up well cared for by neighbours, extended family and friends, and didn't think anything like that of their mothers. Their fathers were nothing short of incredible in raising their children.

TheZenMonkey

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having seen similar circumstances twice, and knowing both families well, your thinking is only one of many possibilities.

Surely, but I'm focusing on only the specific circumstances of this case, not similar ones. I'm delighted to know, though, that you've encountered families where things turned out so well. (No sarcasm there whatsoever, I promise!)

One eyed Jack

TheZenMonkey wrote: »

Surely, but I'm focusing on only the specific circumstances of this case, not similar ones. I'm delighted to know, though, that you've encountered families where things turned out so well. (No sarcasm there whatsoever, I promise!)

Ahh no, I know there was no sarcasm intended but without giving too much detail both mothers were diagnosed with terminal cancer, both mothers died shortly after giving birth, and they had five children in one case, seven children in the other (the babies in both cases survived).

It was just when I read your post, I could understand how you'd think that way, but it's just one potential future, and doesn't have to be like that for those children. Given the circumstances of the particular case in the opening post, I think it's unlikely that the children will grow up questioning their mothers love for them or failing to understand their mothers decision. I think it will be explained to them in a way that is appropriate for them to understand.

mahamageehad

Terrible story. Jeez, and I thought I was having a rough week. Stuff like this really just wakes you up. Poor husband.

revitup

I think we are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this post people. This brave woman wasn't prepared to kill a healthy baby and arrange it's funerial. Simple As. Why would anyone have an opinion one way or the other on this awful life an death event.?
I have to quote from Registered User "A Little Pony" in this post...."No getting away from aggressive brain cancer." Nuff Said..!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

She made the choice she felt was best for her family and we should leave it at that. This may have been a battle she couldn't fight, and as a mother tried her best to protect the child within her. With a terminal illness some patients won't want to spend what time they have left being sick and being a shell of their former selves.

A cancer diagnosis is horrific at anytime but this case seems especially cruel, she acted in the manner she felt was most appropriate and that was her decision, and a very brave one at that.

gctest50

revitup wrote: »

I think we are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this post people. This brave woman wasn't prepared to kill a healthy baby and arrange it's funerial. Simple As. Why would anyone have an opinion one way or the other on this awful life an death event.?
I have to quote from Registered User "A Little Pony" in this post...."No getting away from aggressive brain cancer." Nuff Said..!

revitup wrote: »

........

kill a healthy baby !

who's killing babies ?





/le abortion threads brings all the newbs

revitup
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1
Adverts | Friends

tis a grand post for someone who just signed up right now

post more, tis great craic

,

TheZenMonkey

gctest50 wrote: »

tis a grand post for someone who just signed up right now

post more, tis great craic

,

Thanks, I had a whole reply to that person planned but you said it all. Definitely not worth my time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it will be explained to them in a way that is appropriate for them to understand.

I hear you. But kids do grow up to have second thoughts about things that were explained to them when they were young. Especially if they begin questioning their religion, which does apply in this case. Things I thought were perfectly fine in my childhood for many years, I now understand were kind of unconscionable. (I had the opportunity to rethink many things when one of my parents did something *completely* unconscionable a few years ago; I'm not talking about some fake recovered memories in a therapist's office or anything!) So that's my fear for them. Hopefully it turns out like the situations you've known and this doesn't happen with these kids.

eviltwin

revitup wrote: »

I think we are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this post people. This brave woman wasn't prepared to kill a healthy baby and arrange it's funerial. Simple As. Why would anyone have an opinion one way or the other on this awful life an death event.?
I have to quote from Registered User "A Little Pony" in this post...."No getting away from aggressive brain cancer." Nuff Said..!

You went to the bother of rereging just to post that crap? Twat.

The sooner boards sort out this multiple accounts the better.

Bitches Be Trypsin

That's just really really sad

StupidLikeAFox

LexieOnRale wrote: »

She made the choice she felt was best for her family and we should leave it at that.

This is all that has to be said really, everything else is irrelevant

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

No coming back from aggressive brain cancer.

There can be, seen it several times.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

It's not fair to imply that she's a selfish mother. We are not in a position to judge her or the quality of her decision.

I was gonna quote Seamus with a "Yeesh" because I generally disagree with all he says. :pac: But yeah, kids already there, I can't understand that decision at all. I just hope I'm never in or near anything like a similar situation to it.

B.A._Baracus

That's bloody sad
That woman is a fu*king hero. Giving her life so the child could have the best chance at surviving.

Poor husband now. Can't imagine what he is going through.

gctest50

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

....

That woman is a fu*king hero. Giving her life so the child could have the best chance at surviving...

She was 8 weeks at the time, pure fu*king heroics

"Then, not even a month later, the couple received two pieces of shocking news. Carrie's tumour was back - and she was eight weeks pregnant."

Outlaw Pete

gctest50 wrote: »

She was 8 weeks at the time, pure fu*king heroics

She selflessly gave up a chance at possibly living a longer life just so her baby could have a chance of living.

What's not heroic about that? It absolutely was and here's another story about a woman who made a similarly selfless and brave choice to not have an abortion:

Mother who gave up her life to save her baby

When Cheryl Anderson was diagnosed with cancer at 32, her one concern was for the unborn child she was carrying.

Her daughter Taylor was born two months ago - tragically, Cheryl died the same day. Here, her husband Leigh, 36, talks about his courageous wife. . .

Taylor Anderson was born on August 23 and, in years to come, her birthday, like any much-loved little girl's, will be marked with cakes, streamers and a pile of presents.

But it will also be a day of sorrow for Taylor and her family. For her birthday is also the day that her mother, Cheryl, died, just hours after she'd used up the last vestiges of her strength in bringing her tiny daughter into the world.

Cheryl, who was only 32, was diagnosed with cancer in May when she was two months pregnant. Her response was utterly selfless, inspired by the strength of the maternal bond. She refused an abortion and even went without pain relief in case it damaged the baby.

At six months, doctors felt time had run out, and performed an emergency Caesarean. Cheryl came round from the anaesthetic for long enough to hear the news that her daughter had survived the traumatic delivery. Hours later, Cheryl slipped away in her husband's arms.

'Cheryl and I had been together for 13 years and I never quite realised how much she did to make Georgia and I happy until she was gone,' he says.

It was one day in May this year that Cheryl asked her GP to check out a small lump on the side of her neck. Both she and Leigh were so confident that it was harmless, that they took Georgia along to the local hospital to pick up the biopsy results.

'We realised it might be bad news when we noticed several nurses milling around and sensed a strange atmosphere. And when two of them very directly led Georgia away to find a balloon, Cheryl and I looked at each other and at once registered alarm.

'The specialist came straight to the point. He sat us down and said: "There's no easy way to say this. I'm afraid we found cancer in the biopsy.

Leigh pauses to compose himself. 'We both sat there, utterly stunned. Cheryl was barely out of her 20s - it was the last thing we expected to hear.

Cheryl couldn't have chemotherapy because it would harm her baby - and neither would she consider an abortion, not for religious reasons but because she wanted another child so much. She had such a powerful sense of duty towards the baby that was growing inside her.

Instead, she underwent a major operation that month in which the rapidly growing tumour was removed from her neck.

By August, though, Cheryl was growing weaker and was succumbing to the cancer which was spreading through her body.

One day towards the end of the month, Cheryl went to hospital for a check-up and when the doctors examined her they refused to let her leave.

'The obstetrician asked me to go next door for a quick word while Cheryl settled into her bed,' recalls Leigh. 'She just came out with it and said: "I'm sorry. Your wife is very, very ill. We will have to perform a Caesarean and there is a chance she may not survive. '

Leigh waited outside the theatre and, after what seemed like for ever, two nurses rushed out bearing a tiny bundle. It was his new daughter, wrapped in a blanket and making a strange squeaking sound like a baby lamb.

Of course, I hoped more than anything that Cheryl would hold her, too, but when she came round from the anaesthetic, the doctors told me the operation had revealed cancer in her liver, her spine and in her spleen.

One of the nurses took a Polaroid of Taylor and I rushed down with it to show Cheryl. By the time I got there, she was so weak she could barely smile at the sight of the baby she had sacrificed so much to save. But at least she saw the picture and knew that Taylor had arrived safely.

'I was sitting beside her, with my arms around her, trying to soothe her. Then Cheryl looked straight at me and said: "Let go of me, I've already been out once, you know. With that, she looked upwards, and then she was gone.'

Leigh still wonders if Cheryl was having an out-of-body experience. Was she trying to tell him she had left her body once before, in her first struggle?

He says it is a comfort to him to think that Cheryl was ready to leave and wanted to go.

'About a week after she died, I came across her diary and address book. As I was leafing through it, I noticed she'd added some words on the flyleaf.

'Usually she had beautiful handwriting but that day, her last, she'd managed to spell out laboriously, in almost childish writing: "Leigh and Georgia. I love you.

My heart banged in my chest when I saw it, and I knew that she had not been expecting to make it, despite all the messages of optimism I'd been trying to convey to her.'

Taylor came home last Wednesday weighing 5lb 9oz, and it was an emotional moment when I brought her into the house. It was such a relief after all those weeks of worry, but that was mixed with intense regret that Cheryl wasn't there to see her daughter come home.

Annasopra

Toots wrote: »

Chemo goes into your veins, so it affects your entire body, there would be no way of doing it without harming the fetus unfortunately.

Huh? I know a woman who found out she had breast cancer and was pregnant at the same time. She had chemo for the first few months of her pregnancy and he is about 10 now.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She selflessly gave up a chance at possibly living a longer life just so her baby could have a chance of living.

What's not heroic about that? It absolutely was ..

She had 5 more kids, she may have got a few years with them

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

........and here's another story about a woman who made a similarly selfless and brave choice to not have an abortion:

wtf does that have to do with it ?


anyway here's the GoFundme :

Cure 4 Carrie

https://www.gofundme.com/3otz860

flaneur

_Dara_ wrote: »

Brain cancer is almost always fatal. I can understand why this lady decided to give her foetus the best shot she could. Treatment would likely not have saved her. Prolonged her life a bit perhaps but not saved her.

It's different if the treatment might be curative. Then a tough, agonising decision must be made.

You can’t really make generalizations about cancer of any type. Some brain tumors and cancers (including the one she had) have very poor prognosis. Others, are highly treatable with modern techniques.

There are plenty of people who may be reading this forum who may be diagnosed with brain tumors and may have every possibility of a good outcome. So I just think it’s important to bring that up.

The reality is we don’t know what her chances were as we don’t have access to all the details of her case. It’s quite possible she had a very low likelihood of a realistic cure or life extension with an acceptable quality of life.

I would never really moralise or second guess someone’s decisions not to pursue what could be very harsh cancer treatments. You’re really sometimes looking at picking the least worst outcome and that may not necessarily mean aggressive treatment.

I just think in much the way you can find people making binary arguments about pro life issues, you can get equally binary arguments about people’s choices in cancer treatment. Sometimes it’s worth pursuing, sometimes it isn’t. It all depends on the likely outcomes and on how arduous the treatment is. You can sometimes end up in the realm of “heroic medicine” where the treatment is worse than the disease.

That’s why I think it’s really a pointless exercise to try to reverse engineer this woman’s decisions. She opted to continue with a pregnancy and not pursue cancer treatments. That’s really her call and I don’t think it’s up to a bunch of internet posters without any facts to judge her decisions or ascribe some notion that it was driven by any kind of dogma either.

She weighed up the odds and made a choice.

TheZenMonkey

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What's not heroic about that?

When you already have six kids? Ask an environmental scientist, for one. For two, see other points already made in this thread.

Whether her decision was heroic is subjective. I don't find your opinion ridiculous at all, but I do find the idea that it's an objective fact to be ridiculous.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She selflessly gave up a chance at possibly living a longer life just so her baby could have a chance of living.

What's not heroic about that? It absolutely was and here's another story about a woman who made a similarly selfless and brave choice to not have an abortion:

She had a type of brain tumour that there is no coming back from. It would be agonising but it really wasn't a case of sacrificing her own life. This illness would have 100% killed her. If she'd been diagnosed with early stage breast cancer or Hodgkin's Lymphoma, for example, an abortion would be something that would have made a lot of sense, as they are survivable cancers. And she may well have taken the abortion option.

_Dara_

flaneur wrote: »

You can’t really make generalizations about cancer of any type. Some brain tumors and cancers (including the one she had) have very poor prognosis. Others, are highly treatable with modern techniques.

Where does this idea come from? Of course you can. And it's shite like the bolded bit that causes additional misery for terminal cancer patients, when they have people telling them to "think positive" and "don't give up" because "you never know!". Once a cancer hits a certain stage, the outcome is very clear in the case of many cancers. For example, 100% of metastatic breast cancer patients will die from the cancer in a relatively short amount of time unless something else gets them first. There is no oncologist out there that will them it is a survivable illness. They will told that any treatment they get will is just to prolong their life for a short while. I bring up breast cancer because many people seem to be under the impression that it's survivable at any stage. There absolutely can be generalisations made about many cancers though I'm not sure generalisation is the right term. Glioblastoma multiforme is one of the cancers that you can say someone will not live for very long with. Even for the outliers, it's a terminal illness. They are outliers in that they might get a longer period of life post diagnosis but they will still die from it. You say there might be brain tumour patients reading. Any cancer patient will have been clued in on their prognosis if their oncologist is any good. They won't be given an exact time frame but they will know if their illness is terminal or not.

I don't know where this idea comes from that you can't proclaim any cancer to be terminal, even if it is. It's strange.

One eyed Jack

_Dara_ wrote: »

She had a type of brain tumour that there is no coming back from. It would be agonising but it really wasn't a case of sacrificing her own life. This illness would have 100% killed her. If she'd been diagnosed with early stage breast cancer or Hodgkin's Lymphoma, for example, an abortion would be something that would have made a lot of sense, as they are survivable cancers. And she may well have taken the abortion option.

I don't know anything about those types of cancers but would an abortion have an effect on increasing a woman's chances of survival? Or would continuing her pregnancy have an effect on decreasing her chances of survival?

I'm just thinking that if a woman who is fundamentally opposed to the idea of an abortion, what would be the likelihood of her actually choosing to have an abortion, and the effect it would have on her should she actually survive? I think that's a lot of the dilema too - that it didn't make sense to her to have an abortion because she would have had to live with having had an abortion.

_Dara_

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know anything about those types of cancers but would an abortion have an effect on increasing a woman's chances of survival? Or would continuing her pregnancy have an effect on decreasing her chances of survival?

In and of themselves, no. In some cases, the curative treatment would be, so to speak, contraindicated with pregnancy so it would be either abortion or a potentially damaging delay in treatment. Of course it's a dilemma - she still might not choose to have the abortion. But for a highly survivable form of cancer, having an abortion makes more sense for the mother-to-be than if she was diagnosed with a sure-to-be-fatal cancer. But it's still up to the parents-to-be to decide whether to gamble in delaying curative treatment.