Baby whose mother chose giving birth over chemo has died

[Archae]

Source: WBAY, ABC affiliate in Green Bay, WI

DETROIT (AP) - A relative says the baby born of a Michigan woman who chose to forgo chemotherapy to give birth to the child has died.

Sonya Nelson says her niece, Life Lynn DeKlyen, died Wednesday evening at University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor. Life's mother, Carrie DeKlyen, died Sept. 9, three days after giving birth to her sixth child.


Read more: http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Baby-whose-mother-chose-giving-birth-over-chemo-has-died-446486663.html

---

Sad news...

[Scarsdale]

1. So very sad.

R.I.P. mother and child. Now there are 5 motherless children.

[LisaM]

4. The demonization of abortion has got to stop.

"Maybe Carrie needed her"? What about her other kids??

While it was obviously this woman's choice to make (though I have my own opinions about the unbearable stigma she would have endured with her family and church community had she chosen the abortion), this whole thing never passed the smell test. Why the publicity? Why the pressure to keep a baby at the expense of her own life? Why the romanticizing of someone who basically chose her own suicide over being a mother to five children she'd already brought into the world?

I don't get this "all rights end at birth" mentality. I just don't.

[SunSeeker]

14. Totally agree with you. It was a irrational choice that devastated her 5 kids.

Although she had every right to make that choice as it was her body, what I disagree with is the public and media calling her a hero for making it. Yes, the demonization of abortion has got to stop.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

36. Agreed. And the deification of being a brood mare also needs to stop.

There's nothing to be proud of in being a baby factory.

What's heroic is to not breed, and if you love kids, Adopt!

[SunSeeker]

38. Yep. nt

[get the red out]

131. THIS!

Damned RW religion DESTROYS the lives of women and children. Religion is the most evil, disgusting, hateful, controlling, selfish, dangerous, murderous and disrespectful thing on this planet.

[Yupster]

40. It depends on the odds

I haven't read up on it but what if they told her that even with treatment, sh'ed only live six months. Then maybe the choice of giving a baby life was worth the extra few months she might have had.

I'm sure she looked at it a lot more carefully than I did so I assume she made the choice that she thought was best.

[janterry]

52. Wouldn't she have died anyway?

I'm pro-choice and I'm not sure what she did was heroic - it was just a choice.
.....but if treatment wouldn't really help (and for this kind of cancer, it apparently wouldn't have saved her)
I'd have tried to give the child life, too.

[SunSeeker]

53. Yes, 1-5 years later.

Those 5 kids needed those years with their mom, and would have greatly benefited from that time with their mom, especially at that age. To me, the needs of those 5 kids outweighs a fetus.

But it was not up to me. It was not my body. It was the mom's choice. I fully support her right to make the decision she made, even if I disagree with the decision. That's what being pro choice means.

[MichMary]

82. It's doubtful that she would have had 5 years

and even if she did, they would not have been healthy years. Five years of surgeries, hospitalizations, needles, illness, increasing weakness . . .

The older children wouldn't have only had the responsibility of taking care of their younger siblings, but of their mother as well.

Additionally, we can think we know what we would do if we were in her shoes, but we really don't. Faced with such a dire diagnosis and prognosis, I think our perspective would change.

[SunSeeker]

85. Even 1 year with their mom is a big deal to a kid, let alone 5 kids.

Just hanging out and talking with their mom is incredibly important to a young kid. By every indication, her 5 kids missed out on 1-5 years of that because she chose not to abort and get treatment.

Having cancer does not prevent you from being a mom. I know. I had stage III cancer and had to undergo 3 surgeries, 7 months of chemo and 6 weeks of radiation, and yes, lots and lots of the "needles" you cite, all while the mother of a preschooler. Although I was in no shape to go on a world trip with my son, on good days I would put a wig on my bald head and we would go to the movies, go to the park or even Disneyland (we live nearby), and on bad days we would just hang out at home and talk. 

That is certainly a better outcome than what happened here. She could have created an achievable bucket list of activities to spend quality time with her 5 kids, giving them a long, loving goodbye and preparing them for her passing. Instead, she spent her last days laying in the hospital, untreated, in a coma, acting as a human incubator for a doomed baby. That is not how I would have wanted my kids to remember me.

But of course, I support her right to make the choice she did. It was her body.

[MichMary]

87. I am also

a survivor. Stage III Hodgkins Disease, diagnosed in 1986 when I was 7 months pregnant with my second son. I know everything you are talking about--surgeries, needles, chemo (ABVD,) radiation, etc. I was under treatment for an entire year. I also know that my diagnosis meant that there was (at that time) an 80%--90% chance of cure.

Glioblastoma is a very different illness. Her chances were never very good, and even if she had been alive, her mental faculties may have been decreased to the point that her children may not have wanted to hang out with her, and she may not have wanted her children to remember her the way she would have been.

Whatever. Her life, her body, her choice. She made it, and I would never condemn anyone for their choice.

[SunSeeker]

89. Expressing disagreement with a decision is not condemning a person.

In this instance, it is discussing issues relevant to abortion and society in general. I am troubled by the way media and the right wing glorified this woman's refusal to have an abortion and get treatment, as if that was the only noble decision that could have been made under the circumstances.

[Chemisse]

93. Actually, I am troubled by how this story was shaped up to condemn her decision.

It was her choice, and with her diagnosis and dismal prognosis (which the article didn't bother to mention), I likely would have made the same one.

[SunSeeker]

99. This story was not "shaped up to condemn her decision." Just the opposite.

The OP was sympathetic or neutral, not condemning. The media has lionized the woman. Some of us in this thread disagree with her decision. We still absolutely believe she should and must make that choice for herself. But since she and her husband went public with her choice, painting it as noble and the only "Christian" thing to do, then we have a right to comment on whether that indeed was the best decision in our opinion based on what we know, and to suggest that there were other noble decisions she could have made, which included having an abortion.

[alphafemale]

112. I probably would have too.

Defiantly thrust one more life from my body before I die.

I completely understand.


I would not feel the same way for a treatable cancer.

[still_one]

129. You are right, the odds were against whatever choice she made, and that it was her choice to make is

the most important point that you made in my view

In addition, from what I understand the treatment involved a clinical trial, and that in itself has a lot of uncertainties.

There was no right or wrong decision

It's just a very sad event

[MichMary]

130. She did what she thought was best

When I was diagnosed while pregnant, I was told that in the third trimester, which is where I was in my pregnancy, it was felt that it would be okay to delay treatment until after my baby was born. In the second trimester, the feeling was that the baby would be at a point in his development that they could treat with radiation without harming the baby _too_ much (!!) and in the first trimester they would recommend abortion.

I was spared having to deal with that choice, and I don't know what I would have done if I had had to make the choice. But, I do know now that my life would be a lot poorer without that wonderful young man in it.

I would never second guess anyone who had to make that choice, no matter which choice they made. Very few people understand . . .

[LisaL]

136. She did the only thing she could do, because of religious beliefs.

Husband's statement makes it clear they didn't believe in terminating the pregnancy under any circumstances.

[MichMary]

137. And maybe--

--that has less to do with their religion than with their belief that life begins at conception. There are anti-choice atheists, as well as pro-choice Christians.

[Hortensis]

86. How good of you to point out the enormous advances in cancer therapy

in this era. In fact, experts say we are entering a treatment revolution that changes everything.

If only this poor woman had developed her cancer that 5 years from now you mention.


Jimmy Carter 2017, not exactly the walking dead.

[MichMary]

88. I know from personal experience

about the advances in cancer treatment. I also know that cancer isn't just one disease, some with better prognoses than others.

Glioblastoma is about as bad as it can get.

[SunSeeker]

90. Carter had melanoma that spread to his liver and brain.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/remarkable-cancer-treatment-helped-jimmy-carter-combat-brain/story?id=37467459

I can't imagine his prognosis was much better than this woman's.

[Beaverhausen]

104. Google "glioblastoma multiforme"

[LisaL]

105. Same cancer as McCain has. And he is 81. Of course he is going for all available treatments.

[Beaverhausen]

111. His is multiforme?

[LisaL]

113. Yes.

"Surgery last Friday revealed that he has a malignant aggressive brain tumor called a glioblastoma, otherwise known as a glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) or grade IV astrocytoma."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/07/21/glioblastoma-heres-the-science-behind-senator-mccains-tough-diagnosis/#24fed20d5fcb

[Warpy]

27. Her prognosis, even with treatment, was very grave

and she likely knew her children would grow up without her.

This was her choice. I support it.

[Girard442]

51. That's the key, isn't it?

Ultimately, when faced with an excruciatingly difficult situation, she was able to follow her heart and make a choice that seemed best to her.

Choice. Otherwise we're all just someone's property.

[Warpy]

58. The key is that it was her choice, not yours or mine

Her body, her choice.

It's just very sad that they had to deliver the baby too soon. Even another couple of weeks might have made all the difference.

[Chemisse]

92. That's what I was wondering.

When it said she could have joined a clinical trial, it seemed like all she had were last resort options.

In that situation, I would do exactly the same and hope for the best for the baby.

[Warpy]

95. I was around for some of those last ditch trials in neuro oncology

and even with no pregnancy possible, I'd make the same decision. Some of them were rough. Results were often not great, although I was there for the first chemo trial of a drug that crossed the blood-brain barrier. Yes, it was 30 years ago but I doubt trials have improved all that much.

[Chemisse]

96. Your experience gives you unique insight.

A couple of years ago I read The Emperor of All Maladies – A Biography of Cancer, by Siddhartha Mukherjee. It was really fascinating, but also pretty horrifying what the patients were asked to endure in the name of science.

I thought of their suffering often this year, when I underwent chemotherapy myself for breast cancer. It was so much easier for me and is for others nowadays, because of what those earlier patients went through.

I also value the freedom of choice, both in deciding about pregnancies, and in considering whether to undergo cancer treatments. Personally, I doubt I will seek further treatment if my cancer returns. I don't think anybody should be denigrated for choosing quality of life over treatments when the odds of a cure are very low.

[Warpy]

97. No argument from me

The person who underwent the chemo trial did get a few months of additional time.

I have a rare disease and have undergone a couple of trials. Alas, they didn't work well.

There are others where I would rather accept my own mortality, thanks. People who are desperate for time because someone close to them has a milestone coming up will choose differently.

[Yo_Mama]

32. Unfortunately, her cancer did not have a successful treatment

She had glioforme multiblastoma.

My uncle, who died of the same thing, did it all and was gone in a year and a half. About expected. Three years is a long time.

I would have made the same choice with this diagnosis.

If she could have had even a 50 percent chance of survival, then it would be different.

There are only a few long term survivors known - the treatments, which include brain surgery, sometimes very radical, radiation, and chemo, do seem to extend life for a while but rarely for more than a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioblastoma

I will go further. With that many young children, even if I hadn't been pregnant, I would not have chosen treatment. The commitment would be very difficult for those children of the family, and would worsen the inevitable impact of my death.

Not everything can be treated. The way I look at this is that her pregnancy was a blessing to her and to her family, even if the child did not survive. It gave her hope on the way out, and guided her to the best choice for the children she had.

[Beaverhausen]

33. True. I have a friend who has actually just passed the 3 year mark

Her cancer was in a part of her brain that made it inoperable. She did chemo, radiation and has been on a ketogenic diet and is using an Optune device. Her tumors had not grown since diagnosis up until last month. We are so worried about her now but sadly we know the end is nearing.

I'm sorry about your uncle.

Once I read what kind of cancer this mother had I understood her choice.

[karynnj]

35. Consider that even Ted Kennedy, with all his connections to top medical people

died from this.

[LisaL]

100. A blessing? She is dead, the child is dead.

She found out even before she was pregnant that she had cancer. So it was very early in the pregnancy. She was eligible to join clinical trial, but she would have to terminate the pregnancy. Which she didn't do. Presumably if she wasn't pregnant, she would have participated in the trial, and who knows how much more time she would have had. But she didn't because she found out she was pregnant.
But the child didn't make it either. So how was it a blessing, then?

[MichMary]

107. Another article yesterday

stated that she had surgery to remove the tumor, but it returned a month later, and at the same time she discovered that she was pregnant.

The best treatment option the docs offered before she even found out about the pregnancy was apparently surgery. The fact that it recurred after surgery made it that much more difficult to treat. She knew she didn't have a lot of time, treatment or not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/09/22/the-most-courageous-person-i-knew-man-buries-wife-then-daughter-she-died-trying-to-save/?utm_term=.1a5f7c80f09a

[LisaL]

108. Surgery is the first step in treating glioblastoma. Yea, the doctors did the first step.

But they couldn't do chemo since she found out she was pregnant. Surely you realize surgery by itself isn't adequate treatment for glioblastoma?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/283252-treatment

[MichMary]

110. So, in the month between

her surgery and her recurrence, and before she knew she was pregnant, why didn't they start chemo?

[LisaL]

114. First of all, it doesn't say "a month" it actually says "not even a month"

Second of all, she had surgery, was accepted into clinical trail, then found out she was pregnant. She would have to terminate the pregnancy and she wouldn't, so she couldn't continue with the trial.

"Two weeks later, however, the family's plans were altered when it was discovered she was pregnant with her sixth child. Doctors said DeKlyen could remain in the clinical trial, but that she would need to terminate the pregnancy."
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/08/terminally_ill_woman_attemptin.html

[Hekate]

2. That is really sad. I hope the 5 she left orphaned can forgive her someday.

I mean it. Really.

[LisaM]

5. Or forgive the people who turned her into a hero.....

People were practically drooling over the fact that she chose to forego cancer treatment to maintain a pregnancy that probably should have been ended. The mother already paid with her life. What about the people who supported this inanity?

[Hekate]

6. That, too

[Bettie]

10. I'm sure they're already lining up

religious women to be his next incubater....um, wife.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. She made decisions that were hers to make

May she be at peace.

The state has no business making medical decisions for people.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. You are, of course, correct. Choice is choice.

Even though I disagree with her choice, it was hers to make. There is so much sadness in this story.

[bitterross]

9. Agreed! We have no business telling her what to do either.

I'm saddened to hear her sacrifice will be for naught now. But, it was her decision to make. Not the state's - not mine.

It is not the decision I would have made but I support her wholeheartedly in her decision once she made it. I would have tried to convince her to go another direction but it was ultimately her decision.

Just as it is the decision of families and individuals who choose death with dignity or to terminate life support for a person in a vegetative state. If I am going to support their decisions I have to support this woman's decision too.

[LisaM]

15. Yes, but.....

IMO, and I am only speaking for myself, I think that the pressure in her community made her decision more difficult than it ever needed to be.

She might have been a pariah, called a baby killer, you name it. Of course, choice is choice, but in this case, perhaps a Hobson's choice?

[bitterross]

17. I think you have a good point.

Yes, her community and the beliefs that community thrusts upon others certainly had to be a factor. All of us yield to that sort of pressure from time to time.

[hamsterjill]

30. You make a VERY good point.

There may have been pressure put upon her, as well, to have a large number of children to begin with.

[LisaM]

34. I agree with that, too.

I'm sure you're right.

[Warpy]

79. I doubt it. Catholics use birth control and have abortions when necessary

at a higher average rate than Protestants do. Drives the clergy nuts, which is why they keep harping on what a terrible sin it is.

Her prognosis was grim. She would not have been around to care for her children. Her cancer had recurred quickly after treatment. She chose to take a chance that her baby would live on after her, since she was not going to be there, pregnant or aborted.

It must have been a horrible decision, but it was hers. Not yours. Not mine. Hers.

[LisaL]

115. She wasn't getting the complete treatment required for glioblastoma.

As far as I can tell, she got surgery, enrolled in clinical trial, found out she was pregnant, and couldn't continue in the trial because she wouldn't terminate pregnancy. So whatever treatment she would have gotten if she wasn't pregnant, she didn't get.

[Warpy]

116. Clinical trials are just that. There is no guarantee that they will prolong life

and some of them have shortened life. I know because I worked in a place where many of them occurred.

Her chance of survival was minimal. She knew that. No one in a clinical trial is told that a miracle will occur, only that they'll be adding to the knowledge medicine has about what works and what doesn't.

This was her choice, not yours and not mine. I support her right to choose.

[LisaL]

117. There was a guarantee she was going to die if she didn't get the chemo.

And so she did.
Choice implies a person is actually choosing something. If one is "pro-life" then it seems they don't actually choose anything, they will continue with pregnancy no matter what, no?

[Warpy]

118. Don't you get it? It's not YOUR CHOICE.

Your misunderstanding of what brain cancer clinical trials do and don't offerenotwithstanding.

[LisaL]

119. I am not misunderstanding anything.

I can only go by what is being reported.

"She qualified for a clinical trial that doctors said could prolong her life 10 years or more. However, she couldn't participate if she was pregnant. Chemotherapy would have been too risky to the fetus."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/21/baby-dies-days-after-funeral-mom-cancer/689121001/

[thesquanderer]

12. Arguably, the church has no business making medical decisions for people either.

That's the problem with strict adherence to dogma. You're not really making your own decision.

I don't know enough about this case to say that's what happened here, though. I am only presuming that the decision may have been religion based.

I also wonder, with brain cancer, whether she was even really fully equipped to be able to make such a decision? But again, I don't know the details.

Choosing to give up your life for your child's can be seen as selfless... but not so much when you have five other children depending on you.

[bucolic_frolic]

18. There are no perfect choices

When ill, one is not a good doctor, and mostly not any kind of doctor.

Choices may be based on pain, fear, dementia, medical side-effects, even a smile or comfort from family or caregiver, or on hope, or Biblical intervention. Or if your favorite team won Saturday, or a heart-warming fictional story. Each makes his own way.

After awhile one realizes they are no longer in control of their own destiny, as if they ever were. Life is just a fiction in that sense.

But I'm one who doesn't see happiness when shopping. I see people slaving to produce, and slaves to consume. It all winds up on the junk heap, or in the thrift store. To me, useless. To others, the root of happiness.

[thesquanderer]

22. Thanks for the thoughtful post. (n/t)

[harun]

7. I support her liberty to make this decision herself.

[Bradical79]

11. I understand the choice, but change is needed.

It was her choice to make. Abortion though, especially late term abortion, is too often framed as heartless and selfish at best, ignoring the medical reality of its neccesity to prevent unnecessary suffering. In this individual case we don't know if the decision would be different given a changed public perception, but overall the current perceptions hurt far too many.

[Sunlei]

13. 24 week C-section baby because Mom was almost dead. That was her choice but her kids lost 20 yrs.

[MichMary]

83. Do you mean you think

chemo would have given her an additional 20 years? Doubtful that she would even have had 20 additional months. That diagnosis is one of the most hopeless there is.

She chose to take a chance that her child could live a long life.

So sad for that family. We don't need to second guess.

[SharonClark]

16. No win situation for the pregnant woman.

She has an abortion, has chemo, dies.
She has a premature baby, dies, baby dies.
She loses either way.

[colorado_ufo]

19. Very true.

I worked in the medical field for 30 years and for an oncologist (cancer specialist) for almost seven years. Chemotherapy - very blessedly - sometimes cures. More often, it may extend life, but does carry many side effects. Sometimes, sadly, it does not help at all.

This unfortunate woman had to weigh a lot of things: The odds that this would cure her, her personal moral beliefs, her family's wishes, the chances that she could deliver a healthy child that could live even when she might not, costs and insurance, and many more factors.

We so often say at DU that a woman's choice is between her and her doctor, yet we quickly criticize when we disagree with her choice. We do not know every factor that went into this lady's decision. However, as a mother and grandmother myself, I can assure you that she tried to make the best choice that she could.

Her family has a lot to cope with. Let's just wish them peace and strength. Put the stones away.

[SharonClark]

20. Thank you for your insight and compassion.

[LisaL]

71. She knew she had cancer even before she found out she was pregnant.

The odds were not with her that she would be able to deliver a healthy child.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. She got to see her baby. Maybe that was a win.

I hope her surviving family finds peace.

[herding cats]

23. No she didn't, she'd been in a coma since July.

While it's very sad that both she and the baby have died, it was her choice to make.

I hope the little one went peacefully.

[LisaL]

102. If someone is pro-life, is there actually a choice?

Sounds like her only choice was to continue with pregnancy, no matter what.

[Ms. Toad]

122. Don't be ridiculous. Being pro-life is a political or religious belief.

When faced with an actual decision she can always choose to act consistently with that belief or not.

Your comment is just as silly as the questions the draft boards routinely asked conscientious objectors in the past - based on the assumption that if they can create any possible scenario in which the conscientious objector would act violently, then they aren't really a conscientious objector, and off to war they go.

[LisaL]

124. If you don't act in accordance with your beliefs, then presumably

you weren't actually committed to those beliefs to begin with.
In her case, she certainly seemed to have been committed to her beliefs.

[Ms. Toad]

133. Circular logic.

You insisted that she had no choice because she was pro-choice.

She does have a choice. She can choose to act consistently with those beliefs, or not. That is ALWAYS a choice.

That she chose to act consistently with those beliefs is not evidence that she had no choice - it is only evidence that, in this particular instance, she chose to act consistently with those beliefs.

[SunSeeker]

39. How about she has an abortion and gives her 5 kids 1-5 years of having a mother?

That is certainly a better outcome than what happened here. She could have created a bucket list of activities to spend quality time with her 5 kids, giving them a long, loving goodbye and preparing them for her passing. Instead, she spent her last days laying in the hospital, untreated, in a coma, acting as a human incubator for a doomed baby. That is not how I would have wanted my kids to remember me. But of course, I support her right to make the choice she did. It was her body.

[SharonClark]

43. She may have had only a couple of months to live and they wouldn't be pretty.

Brain cancer is not rainbows and unicorns. What you would like to do for your children and what you are able to do as your brain no longer functions correctly is heartbreaking.

[SunSeeker]

45. If she only had a couple months to live, they would not have offered treatment.

They would have just put her in hospice care, like they did my mom.

No cancer is "rainbows and unicorns." It is insulting that you would suggest I think that. I know what cancer is. I had stage III cancer and had to undergo 3 surgeries, 7 months of chemo and 6 weeks of radiation, all while the mother of a preschooler. Although I was in no shape to go on a world trip with my son, on good days we would go to the movies, go to the park or Disneyland (we live nearby), and on bad days we would just hang out at home and talk.

Just hanging out and talking with their mom is incredibly important to a young kid. By every indication, her 5 kids missed out on 1-5 years of that because she chose not to abort and get treatment.

[NutmegYankee]

48. They offer treatment, even if you have 2 months to live. My father was on chemo with the same cancer

And was diagnosed in Dec and died at the end of Jan. This cancer is very resistant to treatment though. You quote 1-5 years, but usually it's just mere months.

[SunSeeker]

50. Did they tell your dad he only had 2 months when they diagnosed him?

They actually told my mom she only had a couple months when she was diagnosed with stage IV inoperable pancreatic cancer, and they recommended hospice. She made it 6 weeks.

I see no evidence in the article that she was told she only had 2 months. 1-5 years is the life expectancy for glioblastoma after diagnosis.

I'm sorry your dad only made it 2 months after diagnosis.

[NutmegYankee]

59. Yes, they said 2 months.

He was 49.

[SunSeeker]

61. Ok. That was not my experience with my mom. nt

[NutmegYankee]

62. I find hospice to be a newer phenomenon.

My dad was diagnosed 15 years ago when hospitals did anything to sustain life. We had to argue with the doctors to get him off a ventilator.

[colorado_ufo]

81. Hospice is over 40 years old.

It was started in England by Dr. Cecily Saunders. I actually got to meet her when I worked for the cancer specialist, as he was also director of medical education at our local hospital. Hospice in this country is at least 30 years old, but there are many places especially in smaller towns where it is still not well known.

[colorado_ufo]

80. I am so sorry.

My son is only 42 and he is battling cancer right now. He has three small children and a teenage stepdaughter.

[MichMary]

84. A lot may depend on the age of the patient

My aunt was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the age of 55. They gave her the "2 weeks to 2 months" prognosis, and told her there might be some experimental treatments. She chose not to even look into it. She died almost exactly 2 months later.

[Chemisse]

94. How about she gets to decide about her own body?

You say you support her right to make a choice, but are eager to criticize the one she made.

You don't know all the factors that she had to consider, all the horrors she had to face, all the grief she must have experienced at knowing she would be leaving her children motherless.

I have only sympathy for this woman.

[SunSeeker]

98. Of course she gets to decide about her own body.

But if we ONLY praise women who don't have an abortion, it shames those who do, and we cede the discussion to the right wing forced birth assholes.

I have sympathy for every woman.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Very sad.

I think, sadly we do need to note that if it was the usual form of brain cancer, chemo would have probably only bought the mother another year or two of life; so her choice probably only hastened her inevitable death.

[Old Vet]

25. IMO There wasnt any good choice here, But she passed making her own decision hopefully.

What a sad,sad, story......

[MichMary]

26. There are an awful lot of assumptions being made here--

about what her surviving children think, about the "pressure" she may have been under from her community, her husband, her family. Is it remotely possible that she truly believed that she knew what she was doing, and chose the path she chose of her own free will??

[SharonClark]

44. And how long she would have lived and how well she would have lived.

If she'd only had the abortion and chemo. The arrogance and self righteousness of some posters is shocking.

[LisaL]

109. Well, we don't know how long she would have lived.

But we know she didn't live long without chemo. Obviously her chance of making it without chemo was zero. And the child didn't make it either.

[B2G]

28. Her body, her choice. nt

[jb5150]

29. Her life, her decision ...

I support a woman's right to decide what's best for her.

[Beaverhausen]

31. Fuck cancer

really- why can't we cure it for fuck's sake?

I just read the mom had a glioblastoma- the same thing a 48 year old friend of mine has. My friend has maybe another year and it's heartbreaking.

[kimbutgar]

37. And 6 children will be raised without the love of their mother.

Sorry I think the Mother was a selfish person. Religious or not the 5 children did not deserve growing up without their mother if she had a chance to survive.

[SharonClark]

42. Selfish? Isn"t that what anti-choice people say about women who choose abortion?

I guess women can't win, even in death.

[Xolodno]

41. I've responded to this before...and I'll say it again.

It was HER FUCKING CHOICE!!!!!

Doesn't matter if you believe in God, Buddha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Confucianism, Islam, Atheist, Baal, etc....it was her choice.

Get over it. You want to interfere in her choice, no matter what your predisposition with religion or lack of it, it was her choice. You can critique it, but you have no right to enforce your decision upon her.

[SunSeeker]

46. No one here wants to "enforce" their decision on her. We all believe in choice.

We are just critiquing her choice. It's a discussion board. It's what we do here.

[Kaleva]

47. This is DU where we support a woman's choice regardless of what her decision is.

Her body. Her choice. No discussion.

While DU is a discussion board, it is a discussion board that is progressive.

[SunSeeker]

49. We all support a woman's right to choose.

We also have a right to express our opinion on whether she made a wise choice in this particular instance based on the facts provided in the OP.

It works just like freedom of speech. I will fight to the death for your freedom of speech. But supporting freedom of speech doesn't mean I can't criticize what a person says. Just because I criticize what you say doesn't mean I don't support freedom of speech.

Just because I criticize your choice doesn't mean I don't believe in the right to choose. I absolutely believe in and have fought for a woman's right to choose.

If you want "no discussion," you came to the wrong place.

[Kaleva]

56. The only person who can decide if it was a wise choice is the woman herself.

Otherwise the implication is that there are adult women who cannot make the "wise" choice. Publicly shaming a woman or her memory is nothing less then an attempt to restrict choice.

While DU is a discussion board, the TOS places limits on what can be discussed. Legion is the number of former DUers who thought complete freedom of speech was allowed here. However, Skinner has said that anti-choicers are allowed to be members of DU and express their opinions.

[SunSeeker]

63. Of course only a woman can decide what is best for her. I am very pro choice.

I am not "publicly shaming" her. She is dead and cannot be shamed. I am expressing my opinion about her decision, like many other progressive, pro choice posters on this thread who find this story troubling.

I believe women, teens, any pregnant female, should have an absolute right to decide how to deal with their pregnancy and what to do with their body. Being pro choice means believing in her right to make that decision, not agreeing with her decision or being silent about what is going on in the world around us.

Your "implications" are incorrect. Should we stay silent when we see women making self-destructive decisions based on what we believe are misogynistic, patriarchal influences? If we stay silent, then all women will hear is the patriarchy.

[Kaleva]

64. We agree that only the woman can decide what's best for her.

However, this woman has been characterized here as being an "idiot ", of being "mentally ill", and of being "brainwashed" by supposedly pro-choicers. People who think the woman should have made a decision that they would have approved of. This makes these people anti-choicers.

You may consider yourself and others here who have the same view as you to be strongly pro-choice but it is my opinion you and they are not but since I don't know you or them, I could be wrong. I myself feel very strongly about people who feel they can pass judgement on what a woman decides to do with her own body. I've been here since early 2008 and not once have I ever tried to second guess a woman's decision to either keep or terminate a pregnancy and I've never done that in the real world either.

[SunSeeker]

67. Disagreeing with someone's choice does not make you anti-choice.

If anything, it proves you are pro choice, if you still believe it is her decision, not yours. Everyone here is of that mind.

Silence in the face of the blaring anti-abortion propaganda in this country is not proof of pro choice purity. To me, it is an abdication, a ceding of the conversation to the right wing.

[Kaleva]

69. Yes it makes one anti-choice

Because it's nobody's buisness but the woman's. Feeling one can pass judgement on what a woman decides IS being anti-choice.

We are never going to agree on this and I'm going to move on. I rarely make a comment in threads about choice and n this one, I've proabably made more posts then in any of the rest over the past few years combined. In passing I want to thank you for the vigorous but civil exchange.

[SunSeeker]

70. No it doesn't. We should discuss these sort of things on discussion boards.

And I am glad we did.

[jberryhill]

78. Does freedom of speech require you to agree with anything I say?

No.

You can choose what you want to eat in a restaurant too. But if you choose Brussels sprouts, I'd still probably say "yuck". That does not mean I will prevent you from doing so.

[RhodeIslandOne]

138. Really?

So "critiquing her choice" if it was to have an abortion would be ok too? Under the guise of "discussion"?

[SunSeeker]

140. Well, some people here are already edifying her choice not to have an abortion.

I can't imagine why someone would critique her choice to have an abortion, but if it was because they believe women should not have a right to abortion, then you have to wonder why they are on this site.

[RhodeIslandOne]

141. Edifying it?

Could you point to where that is being done?

It was her choice, period. I'm not going to glorify nor condemn. It's none of my business nor is it to project that she somehow wasn't qualified to decide for herself.

[SunSeeker]

142. This couple went public with her choice, to showcase their "pro life" views.

Thus they invited public comment.

No one here said she "wasn't qualified to decide for herself."

[riverbendviewgal]

54. It was her choice.

My son had GBM brain cancer. It is terminal in most cases within 2 years with treatment. He died 18 months after diagnosis. He had every treatment Ted Kennedy had. She chose to save her baby to give it a chance to live. Sadly it died.

My son's treatment cost us nothing because we are Canadians. He was a handsome young man that died at 26 years old.

Luck of the draw in life.

[Beaverhausen]

73. I'm very sorry about your son

I have a friend with it. She's 3 years past diagnosis- fighting with everything she has.

[dembotoz]

55. i was actually in this very situation a number of years ago

aggressive leukemia that appeared fairly early third trimester

started with gp saying her counts looked funny but hey pregnant women have funny counts

ob gyn says no not wacky like this....go to hosp for tests...

in the meantime the love of my life who took VERY good care of herself is sinking like a rock...

at hosp 1 the ob introduces you to your first oncologist and the world crashes.

Ob STRONGLY suggests we transfer to the big regional medical teaching hospital before we go further (a tribute to the ob-she was wonderful)

so we transfer to the big hospital...meet the 2nd oncologist...a wonderful doctor
quickly establish full term is not an option...she won't last that long.
so we do another amnio...to check fetal development...i mention second amnio cause i have run into folks who claim my wife was pro life....my wife was a speech pathologist at a sheltered workshop....the first amnio was to ensure she was not gonna have a client for kid...l like to joke she wanted the screening after meeting more of my family....

so fetal development was far enough so we did a very quick c section and i became a father. she sorta healed for a few days then chemo began....she lasted 2 and a half years.

my point if i were to have one....is to give a bit of a shout out to the dad. His plate is really full now. we were fortunate perhaps in that the oncologist told us the baby had to go...but the ob told us ok a bit early but he looks ok.....we did not have to make that decision...in preparation for the events i had secretly decided wife over child...i am still ok with that...but it did not come to that.

Having been there, i have always been pro choice but since then i have become more rabid pro choice....
i see the right to liars as folks who would have been all to happy to murder my wife...i hate them intensely

[PassingFair]

57. Oh, so sorry for your loss, dembotoz.

I can't even imagine the terror and sorrow you have had to endure.

I don't even have words...

[dembotoz]

60. Thank you long time ago...it did make me who i am today

and it does explain i have no tolerance for right to liars

[TexasBushwhacker]

65. Absolutely her choice, but this is what I have a problem with

"Her husband, Nick DeKlyen, has said their decisions were rooted in their Christian faith."

So does that mean, as Christians, that it would have been <b>wrong</b> for her to terminate the pregnancy so she could receive treatment and possibly be around another 10 to 20 years for her 5 living children? Because if that's the case, I have a big problem with that.

[Beaverhausen]

72. No way she would have lived 10-20 years. More like 1 or 2

Look up glioblastoma multiforme.

[TexasBushwhacker]

74. Her doctors said she was eligible for a clinical trial

of a new drug and they said the 10 to 20 years. I realize her cancer has a poor prognosis.

[Beaverhausen]

75. Didn't know that

but 10-20 years is pretty far-fetched. Sorry, I have a friend with the same thing so this is very personal to me.

[TexasBushwhacker]

91. So sorry to hear that

Has your friend looked into clinical trials? There are a lot of them for GM.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

[Beaverhausen]

103. Yes of course she has

She isn't eligible.

[TDale313]

106. fwiw, sadly, it sounds like her prognosis was not good.

Last edited Sun Sep 24, 2017, 04:43 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't know if her decision would have been different if 10 or 20 more years with her living children were a likely possibility, but it sounds like that was probably not the case.

She made what seemed to her like the best choice in a very bad situation.

[mainer]

66. If I had glioblastoma multiforme, I would have made the same choice

She was doomed. At least this way, her child had a chance.

And I'm pro-choice.

[alphafemale]

68. If you believe in Choice at all you must accept this.

The only "choice" I fault them for is going public with this.

And the media somehow seeing her as a near saint.

Choosing a few months more with ghastly treatments to be on the earth a little longer for your family.

That would be noble too.

[LisaL]

120. Choice implies there was a choice.

These people are pro-life. There was no actual choice other than continue with the pregnancy.

"We’re pro-life," Nick DeKlyen previously said. "Under no circumstance do we believe you should take a child’s life. She sacrificed her life for the child."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/21/baby-dies-days-after-funeral-mom-cancer/689121001/

[EllieBC]

121. So choice isn't really choice to you unless the choice had been abortion?

It's rather sad that there's only one valid choice to some. When I say I am pro-choice, I mean it. If that means you want to have 12 kids, no kids, continue a pregnancy instead of getting chemo, or terminate a pregnancy to get chemo. It's your choice.

[LisaL]

123. To me, choice implies having options.

Based on what her husband said, the family didn't believe in termination of pregnancy under any circumstances. So what choice did she have other than to continue with the pregnancy, no matter what?

[EllieBC]

125. That was her choice though.

She's pro-life (in her decision for herself in this case) so that would be her choice.

I wonder if this level of questioning would be considered appropriate had she aborted? Or again is there only one valid choice in cases like this? Only one acceptable outcome?

[Bluepinky]

132. You're right, due to her religious beliefs, she didn't have a choice.

Her religion didn't allow for followers to make a choice, it is mandated that abortion is not allowed in any situation, even if the mother's life is at risk. So essentially she didn't have a choice, as abortion was not an option under any circumstance.

Her religion certainly didn't allow for use of birth control either, it also took that choice away from her.

Very religious people overlooked all of Trump's faults and voted for him because he promised to appoint a pro-life judge to the Supreme Court.

[MichMary]

139. How do you know that her

religion didn't permit the use of birth control? Just because she had a bunch of kids? Maybe that was also her choice.

I read an article yesterday that included quotes from her pastor, who stressed that their church offered the couple counseling, but would never make a medical decision. I don't think there is any Christian denomination, including Catholicism, that would have judged her harshly for aborting under these circumstances.

Plain and simple, this was her choice to make.

[Bluepinky]

143. She really didn't have a choice.

According to USA Today, husband Nick was quoted with the following: "We're pro-life. Under no circumstance do we believe you should take a child's life. She sacrificed her life for the child."

So Carrie DeKleyen didn't make a choice, as abortion was never an option for her.

I don't know about the birth control; I'm assuming that this family, who can't opt for abortion even to save the life of a mother, would consider any form of birth control (except maybe the rhythm method) as against God's plan.

[Purveyor]

76. ...

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

77. This is EXACTLY what choice is about.

She made one particular choice. You or I might have made a different one.

But it's clear that her chance of living was extremely limited no matter how she chose.

I cannot begin to imagine being in her situation.

Some years back I knew a young woman whose mother had been in a similar situation. Pregnant, with cancer. My acquaintance said quite fiercely that in a choice between the mother and the baby, the baby was the right choice. Privately, I disagreed, but I also knew I didn't know the entire story. I do know the baby got born and lived, the mother died. Again, this is what choice is all about.

[LisaL]

101. It sure sounds to me that she was pro-life.

Christian beliefs and all that. Seems her only choice was to continue on with pregnancy.

[Orrex]

126. Exactly correct

When this story broke on Sept 9, DU had a number of responses along the lines of "I support her right to choose, but she chose wrong." In other words: "I support her right to choose what I think she should choose."

There was no good choice in this situation, so her only option was to choose the least bad one for her family. I suspect that she discussed it with her doctor, her husband, her extended family, and her children, so if we have any actual respect for a woman's right to choose, we must accept her right to choose contrary to our own preferences.

Regarding her choice, anyone whom she didn't consult about it can shut the hell up about it. When I'm asked for my opinion on it, I give the correct answer: It's none of my goddamn business.


And let's not candy-coat this with bullshit about "the kids could have had more time with their mother." Glioblastoma is a death sentence, full stop. If you're very lucky, you'll get two years of life following your diagnosis, with your last half-dozen months or so being a semi-comatose drug haze, and that's only following surgery and intensive chemo.

[LisaL]

127. Using that logic, what would be of your business?

What do you think you are allowed to have an opinion about? Looks like family went public with her situation, because she sacrificed her life to save the baby, but baby ended up dying anyway. As such, I fail to see why I am not supposed to have an opinion about it.

[Orrex]

128. Well, as long as you don't imagine that your opinion matters

I know that mine sure as hell doesn't, for instance. Certainly I have no right or standing to declare that she made the wrong choice, which is exactly what some on DU have done. We can say "I would have chosen differently," but you and I have no right to say "she chose wrong." She made what she thought to be the least bad choice among several terrible options.

As a general guideline for "what would by of your business," I would probably stay out of private medical discussions that involve me second-guessing an experience physician. This was not a case of withholding care from a child, as in the case of idiot anti-vaxxers; the woman chose to decline her own medical care in hope of protecting her child.

Likewise, if someone chooses to exercise a right in a way that is actively hurtful to others (as in the case of Nazis and their president, for instance), then I reserve the right to respond.

Regardless, I am confident that the family didn't go public in order to invite people to second-guess her decision.

She knew was going to die anyway, and as I noted already, she wouldn't have enjoyed rich years of fulfillment with her children.


What, in your view, does "respecting her right to choose" actually mean?

[Bluepinky]

134. The mom never had a choice. It's not a choice if you're only allowed one option.

The article relates that she is a strict Christian, and abortion is never an option, even if it would save the life of the mother. She had no choice.

[LisaL]

135. My feelings exactly.

Some people keep on claiming that it was her choice, that we have to respect her choice, blah, blah, blah.
Sounds like she wouldn't have had abortion in any circumstance, even if her cancer was highly treatable, if it meant terminating the pregnancy, because of her and her husband's views on abortion.

[Bluepinky]

144. I know, the husband said under no circumstance would his wife end the pregnancy.

It's not a choice if you're unable to choose one of the two options.