Chemotherapy and pregnancy - the dilemma.

political analyst · 22-09-2017 01:08PM #1

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 · 22-09-2017 01:10PM

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 · 22-09-2017 01:10PM

No coming back from aggressive brain cancer.

22-09-2017 01:12PM

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

annascott · 22-09-2017 01:15PM

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 · 22-09-2017 01:18PM

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 · 22-09-2017 02:27PM

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 · 22-09-2017 02:40PM

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.

22-09-2017 02:46PM

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 · 22-09-2017 02:47PM

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 · 22-09-2017 02:56PM

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.

22-09-2017 02:59PM

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 · 22-09-2017 03:01PM

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 · 22-09-2017 03:04PM

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 · 22-09-2017 03:07PM

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.

22-09-2017 03:10PM

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. · 22-09-2017 03:19PM

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 · 22-09-2017 03:21PM

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

Roger Hassenforder · 22-09-2017 03:25PM

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_ · 22-09-2017 03:27PM

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 · 22-09-2017 03:29PM

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_ · 22-09-2017 03:32PM

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 · 22-09-2017 04:11PM

_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.

22-09-2017 04:15PM

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_ · 22-09-2017 04:28PM

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 · 22-09-2017 07:56PM

What a woman.

TheZenMonkey · 22-09-2017 09:37PM

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 · 22-09-2017 10:02PM

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 · 22-09-2017 10:29PM

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 · 22-09-2017 10:43PM

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 · 22-09-2017 11:05PM

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

Chemotherapy and pregnancy - the dilemma.

Comments