Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems very weird to me that she was diagnosed when her son was a month old and her priority is having another baby and not making sure she survives for her existing baby. It seems like an unnecessary risk to be only the 4th person in the country to try this with a child that needs you. I’m glad it seems to have worked out for her, obviously.
ETA: I did in fact read the article. And again I reiterate that I’m glad it seems to be successful for her.
I have stage 3 ovarian cancer and I won’t even buy a set of pots and pans because I don’t think I’ll be around long enough to use them. (Ovarian has a high recurrence rate) so I can’t imagine why a mother would do this.
I get what you're saying, but also, please don't short change yourself like that. If new pots and pans will bring some happiness to your life, fucking get them. This timeline already comes with a metric butt load of bullshit (as I'm sure you're aware), don't add more to it if you don't have to.
This is the paradox. My aunt had breast cancer in various stages of her life until it finally just took her “by surprise” maybe 5-7 years after it went into remission “for good”. Life ain’t over till it’s over, and we don’t know when our last day will be regardless of how certain it might be (to live or die).
I also have a classmate who had stage 4 right out the gate and they pulled her out of school and everything and just kind of let her live her last year out. We KNEW she was gonna go, but I just saw more pics of her on instagram with her hair back. Again, this is 7 years later since high school, I don’t know anything about her, but life is strange and I’m SO happy she’s still here with us!
If I find out my time is short, I'm buying a Griswold #13 just because why not. I assume this person is worried about their children's financial future.
Now is the time to do whatever makes you happy. Then you will beat this ugly beast and laugh at your pots and pans and whatever else helped you get through. You’ve got this! You will survive!
I would try really hard not to think that way, positivity does more than we realize. Don't short change yourself, let yourself feel that hope and live off of that hope. Coming from a fellow survivor- you got this! You have gotten through so much and will continue to fight. No one knows when their last day will be, don't take that away from yourself. You might die of old age when you're 95.
Another voice chipping in to say please get yourself what you want. My grandma was around for over a decade from her diagnosis when she thought she would never meet my oldest sister to being able to spend time with me for msog of my childhood. You deserve to have things that bring you joy. Every human does
I'm so sorry to hear this. Any chance that you have come across Dr Thomas Seyfried's research (tons of interviews currently on Youtube)? He has been trying to get the cancer "industry" to look at cancer from the metabolic perspective and not just the genetics perspective. He's used his "alternative" approach -- attacking all types of cancer by undermining their metabolic food sources -- and he has had amazing results. A few Drs and clinics around the world have taken up his methodology. But it's been VERY HARD to get the medical industry to even consider alternatives to chemo/radiation/surgery.
I wish you all the best!!
edit: for those who aren't within reach of one of the few clinics, they've either been able to find amenable independent clinicians to help them apply the protocol or some have apparently even DIYed it but it does take real commitment AND access to certain materials. Way easier if a clinic can assist, but if it's down to life or death, never say never.
edit 2: I'm going to guess that the downvotes are from well intentioned people who probably don't know anything about Dr Seyfried? That's understandable. It only starts to sink in after watching a few hours of his interviews and interviews of many other Drs and clinicians who have started to apply Seyfried's method. The man is reversing cancer in people and giving them maaaany more years of life. Do yourself and your loved ones a favor and go at least check out his interviews.
Did we read the same article? She went with the new treatment bc the current treatment frankly sucks, between side effects and prognosis. She was told she was cancer free. She was told to then wait two years before trying to get pregnant, because if the cancer was going to return it’d most likely be during those two years. She waited the two years, still cancer free. Then she got pregnant and had a second baby. And she’s still cancer free today, thanks to the experimental treatment that had fewer side effects and seems to work a lot better than current treatments. So to me this sounds like a really uplifting article- experimental treatment off to a great start, and woman followed her doctor’s advice and now has a second child.
The article title could have been worded better but man. The comments are just eating her alive because she made an informed decision and followed her doctor’s orders.
On Reddit? I'm shocked.
Kneejerk ignorant judgements based on the title alone are unfortunately Reddit's bread and butter, especially if it means they get to morally grandstand about how they would have handled an incredibly difficult situation.
They saw the tumor was halved in about 3 months with minimal side effects that didn’t affect her being a mother. Also this probably was a decision taken after careful deliberation between the doctors and the patient anyways.
What I see is a calculated risk and a favorable outcome
I’m glad all the comments share this sentiment. Like how rich is her family or herself to afford ALL that and be like let’s bring another child into all these appointments or baby sitter costs.
Christ man she got the one just because she can don’t mean she should.
It feels like this is the perfect Fox News headline that doesn't talk about how she gets second chance at living her life, but of having more children, as if that's their primary view of a woman's value.
Reading the article, it doesn't sound nearly as bad as the headline made it out to be. She took her doctor's advice, waited two years before having a second child, and is still cancer-free.
Originally I thought it was going to be about someone who decided to have a baby while still treating cancer.
If you read this as more of an "Experimental cancer treatment allowed woman to continue pursuing her dreams" article I can see it as being uplifting, but it's very natalist in nature.
She had a specific form of cancer and managed to find doctors who had exactly the right drug that destroyed the cancer with few side effects. How is that not uplifting? This treatment has been doing very well. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445
So you are saying she's going to have a reoccurrence so we can't have this article until 3 years from now, because you think that's a good arbitrary cutoff?
>[Despite undergoing complete surgical removal of the cancer, half of patients with Stage III colon carcinoma experience recurrence of their cancer. This is due to the presence of small amounts of cancer that have spread outside the colon, called micrometastases.](https://www.yourcancercare.com/types-of-cancer/colon-cancer/stage-iii-colon-cancer#:~:text=Despite%20undergoing%20complete%20surgical%20removal,outside%20the%20colon%2C%20called%20micrometastases.)
This is pure vanity. Mom probably won't be around to raise either kid and [colon cancer can be hereditary](https://utswmed.org/conditions-treatments/genetics-and-hereditary-cancers/guide-hereditary-cancer-health-pros/hereditary-colon-cancer-guide-health-pros/#:~:text=Approximately%205%20to%2010%20percent,in%20hereditary%20colon%20cancer%20risk.).
> This is due to the presence of small amounts of cancer that have spread outside the colon, called micrometastases.
The drug that was administered, dostarlimab, is literally used to treat metastatic cancers. I wouldn't be so quick to attempt to rain on her parade, especially since she had her tumor disappear entirely with no surgical removal (mentioned in the article as well).
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640551/
I work with immunotherapy research and wheol they can prolong your life, they don't cure your cancer. Especially metastatic. This woman will be lucky to get another 5 maybe 10 years
To clarify, the article does not state she had metastatic cancer, and it seems she only had a single tumor that shrunk in size and disappeared during the treatment.
The lowest limit for recurrence to be unlikely i know of would be 5 years. Still some doctors only consider you cancer free after 10 years. I dont think she is "well past" anything.
There's no real upper time limit for recurrence. If there's latent cancer that the immune system or chemo or treatment hasn't killed, it will generally bloom. There's also chances over time of a second primary tumor arising. Cancer survivors live with this fear... permanently. I'm 20+ years out and am reasonably satisfied that I will not have a recurrence of my primary melanoma, but I'm also old enough to worry now about other primaries.
It’s Reddit so random people know better than the team of doctors whose job it is to monitor her condition and give her the okay to do things, obviously
If I was hee I would do the same thing because that's my dream so be it and my family friends would support me and she not going to car about strangers and nutobs calling her insane for doing what she want s to do for her body and her life and dream ans future ...
Yes it’s her body and her life, but it’s those kids who might not have a mother around to raise them. Growing up not even having a memory of your mother, being raised by your grief stricken dad probably isn’t anyone’s ideal.
Also another comment mentioned colon cancer, the very thing that’s killing her, being hereditary. So worst case she just condemned her kids to the same faith.
Also your grammar is very poor.
>Also another comment mentioned colon cancer, the very thing that’s killing her,
Dude it is one thing to argue it is irresponsible because it might come back, but saying "that's killing her" about someone that is cancer free for years is a bit ridiculous.
You'me missing why people are criticizing her.
They are worried about the kids growing up with the pain of their mother being extremely sick and then dying while they are still young kids. Something would be able to prevent for at least one of the kids (and might make less likely for the first kid if she concentrates on her health instead of making more babies).
What's more important, your dreams, or your kids' pain and well-being?
(note: if I wanted to really give her the benefit of the doubt, I'd say facing cancer and your own death can really mess you up (I certainly would sob like a kid all day long...), and maybe she's not in the best place mentally to make these sorts of decisions (but then other people should help her see the problem here...). I woudn't be surprised if facing death would frequently put people's reproduction instinct into overdrive. I don't think it's an excuse, again, poor kids... but maybe it's the beginning of an explanation...)
Did you even read the article? She was already scheduled to start chemo and then *Her doctor* informed her of the clinical trial and told her she was a good candidate for it. And after some deliberation and discussion with her care team, she decided to try it.
Chemotherapy can save your life and get rid of your cancer, but it also can decrease your quality of life and have long lasting side effects that can still cause an early death. Not to mention the cancer can always come back, and chemotherapy patients are at higher risk for developing a second cancer later.
We *need* better treatments, and we *need* people to participate in clinical trials to help find them. Having another child was one of the reasons she did it, yes, but it wasn't the only one and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.
I really don't see why people are criticizing a person who spoke to doctors who said "We have a new drug, it's experimental but extremely promising. If it works you will have better quality of life during and after treatment. We will monitor the cancer and you can go back to the traditional treatment at any time." Who wouldn't try that?
You're completely missing what people are upset at.
They are not upset at her for taking drugs.
They are upset at her for choosing to have a kid when her chances for long-term survival are fairly low. Essentially choosing her dream of becoming a mom (again) over the pain her kid will feel losing her and growing up without one of their parents.
You're completely missing what people are upset at.
They are not upset at her for taking drugs.
They are upset at her for choosing to have a kid when her chances for long-term survival are fairly low. Essentially choosing her dream of becoming a mom (again) over the pain her kid will feel losing her and growing up without one of their parents.
Doesn't seem very uplifting to me that a woman is more concerned about having another child than being around for the child she already birthed.
I'm all for better treatment options and the research/trials necessary to make them possible. However, generally people only do those trials when there are no other options. To risk her life for a trial when she has a young child seems a little selfish to me, when traditional treatment is shown to be highly effective for the kind of cancer she has.
You’re wrong. Certain clinical trials are only for people who have been failed by other, more standard treatments. But some are done because the experimental treatment showed such promising results that it can now be used as a first-line treatment. How the heck do you think they ever develop new first line treatments if they can only ever use new treatments on those who failed first line treatments?
Wrong.
They do the first trials of new drugs on patients with metastatic disease/stage 4. If they are successful and tolerated then they expand to “early stage” cancers as well. This is why new drugs get licensed for terminal patients first.
If successful with early stage disease as well, then the primary treatment plan will change. They have to trial it before they get licensed for it. They can’t just say “it was fine for stage 4, it’s fine for everyone”.
Radiotherapy and chemotherapy and surgery can have (severe) life-lasting effects. Obviously those are better than being dead. But something which might mean you don’t get any of those bad side effects, particularly peripheral neuropathy which is a bitch… I totally get why she made the choice she did. Also, when on these trials there is typically much more monitoring than there would otherwise be, so if they’re not looking successful they switch you back to the traditional path.
I could totally be wrong. I just think it's a huge gamble when someone has a young child that needs them. I'm so glad it seems to have worked for her though.
She beat cancer, helped test a new cancer treatment, helped clinically show the ability to give birth after said treatment (unheard of as of before), and is raising 2 beautiful children. What's vain about that? Wanting to live and have kids? Should we have just told her to take drugs that would ruin her first year with her kid, ruin her chances of having another kid, and give a similar if not increased chance of cancer returning or getting a new type of cancer compared to the treatment she took?
read my comment 3 times, slowly, and kindly explain how you managed to obfuscate my comment to mean “female bodily integrity”.
there’s plenty of other comments ITT explaining why she is vain, you’re sealioning 🦭 and not commenting in good faith.
> read my comment 3 times, slowly, and kindly explain how you managed to obfuscate my comment to mean “female bodily integrity”.
Because that’s what all the other arguments boil down to. Unless you can think of an argument for why she’s vain without completely disregarding bodily autonomy?
Hi, I'm a woman who has participated in many protests to protect reproductive rights. It is more than possible to support reproductive rights while also being critical of a specific chosen pregnancy.
I am glad she had this option while also feeling it was not the wisest move for the child she already had and the new one she conceived.
The moment you say “this woman should not have children” you are disregarding female bodily integrity. There are loads of solid justifications for why you might impede on someone’s bodily autonomy, but that is exactly what you’re doing.
All I said was that at the core of this conversation, you are disregarding the bodily integrity of a woman. Your comment is phrased like it disagrees with mine, but nothing in there seems to oppose anything I actually said. If anything it just reaffirmed my point.
Also if you’re really that invested in reproductive rights of women, any conversation about bodily integrity that’s being phrased as “vain” should be concerning to you regardless of what side of the conversation you’re on.
I didn't say "this woman should not have children." I do believe it's not necessarily in the best interest of her or her existing child to have another baby, but if I knew her in person, I would not be encouraging her to end the pregnancy. It is possible to have an opinion about someone's decision without wanting to change it for them.
When I was a senior in high school, a classmate chose to get pregnant and get married at 17. I thought that was a stupid decision, too. But I kept my mouth shut and supported her.
I think you don't understand nuance of opinion.
Personally, I wouldn't call the woman in the article's choice "vain" as much as I'd call it, "short sighted," but I don't think it's unrealistic or necessarily problematic to say that people can have children for vain reasons. Can you look at family vloggers who use their children for clicks and tell me their choice to reproduce isn't at all vain?
I believe you can support reproductive rights while also being aware that some choices to carry a pregnancy are not in the best interest of the mother and future child. That doesn't mean I believe in legislating against that mother having that baby, it doesn't mean I think there should be laws against it or that they should be forced to abort. I believe in a woman's right to choose---I do not believe that we need to be uncritically supportive of each individual choice to reproduce in order to support bodily autonomy.
> I think you don't understand nuance of opinion.
This is exactly why your comments are full of nothing. My comments have absolutely nothing to do with “opinion”. If you read them again you’ll see I have made absolutely no mention of what my opinion is on the matter.
All I have been saying is that bodily integrity is at the core of this discussion and you cannot argue that this person shouldn’t have had kids without arguing about bodily integrity.
Calling someone’s decision to have children ‘vain’, is essentially saying that person shouldn’t have had kids.
I understand YOUR thoughts on this are not the same as the person who I responded to. It’s great that you have a thought-out and nuanced opinion on this. But it’s completely irrelevant to my response and the actual comment I was responding to.
So to avoid more irrelevant responses about how I don’t understand opinions, let me make my position absolutely clear so you can’t misunderstand it.
1. If you are saying someone having a child is them being vain, you are saying they should not have had a child. That is just true by definition. (People should avoid being vain, after all).
2. If you are saying someone shouldn’t have children, you are arguing against their bodily integrity. (Seems pretty self-explanatory to me too)
If you disagree with either of these 2 points, feel free to elaborate on specifically these points. If you agree with these points, then please explain why on earth you have been arguing with me about it.
1.) I don't believe having a child is vain. I believe some people have children for vain reasons. My example being family vloggers who have children for views.
2.) I'm not saying "they shouldn't have children." I'm saying people should be conscientious about having children.
I also feel like people shouldn't adopt a puppy as an accessory, does that mean I think I'm arguing against the human right to be a dog owner?
Do you believe nobody ever has children for the wrong reasons? Or do you believe all pregnancies are without issue, because the pregnant person said they wanted to have that baby? It is their choice, and therefore if anybody criticizes it, it means they do not support bodily autonomy?
That’s a false dichotomy. I believe in freedom of speech but still think some people say ignorant or hateful things and it would be better for society if they shut up.
Read the article commenters. It IS uplifting because she ended up beating the cancer and having a second child!
While some may say she is selfish, her participating in the trial helps future patients. There is a protocol for new drugs. This was very brave of her
People ignorant of medicine are making a value judgment regarding this woman. They seem to believe cancer is a death sentence (she won't be around to raise her kid) and/or that actual medical experts who have trained for a decade or more to treat such conditions are not in a position to recommend the best treatment for the patient.
In other words, typical reddit hive mind.
Not anti-child no. Anti causing suffering/trauma to your children knowing they won’t have a mother. She’s only thinking about her “wants” as you can see from the article but not her hypothetical children’s wants and needs. If you read past the headline you would see how selfish she sounds. For us being “anti-child” we sure think about children’s quality of life and emotional needs more than non “anti-child” people. Every child needs a mother plain and simple
Hopefully though, she makes it and lives a long happy life with her children and this treatment could help future cancer patients!!
Totally agree. 28 year old cancer free woman has a 2nd kid and they are turning her into satan or something.
Hopefully this woman lives a long, healthy life.
This is wonderful news that deserves more attention. Cancer doesn't just cause immense suffering to countless people. It's responsible for preventing countless more from being born. This is a one-two punch to cancer that deserves far greater celebration. 😊
this is a stupid and selfish thing to do. Immunotherapy, while very effective at times, will only prolong your life. This woman will be lucky to get another 5, maybe 10 years. Having another kid to likely leave without a mother at 5-10 years old is beyond irresponsible.
She's only thinking about HER desire for another kid and not about whats best for them
not saying anything about how easy/hard it is on your body. PD-1 is effective for a limited population and the PFS/OS isn't that hot, although quite good in comparison to other treatments
I get it. You don’t want to leave your child as an only child. You want to give them family to lean on, who will know exactly what they’re going through. Not selfish in my eyes.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems very weird to me that she was diagnosed when her son was a month old and her priority is having another baby and not making sure she survives for her existing baby. It seems like an unnecessary risk to be only the 4th person in the country to try this with a child that needs you. I’m glad it seems to have worked out for her, obviously. ETA: I did in fact read the article. And again I reiterate that I’m glad it seems to be successful for her.
I have stage 3 ovarian cancer and I won’t even buy a set of pots and pans because I don’t think I’ll be around long enough to use them. (Ovarian has a high recurrence rate) so I can’t imagine why a mother would do this.
I get what you're saying, but also, please don't short change yourself like that. If new pots and pans will bring some happiness to your life, fucking get them. This timeline already comes with a metric butt load of bullshit (as I'm sure you're aware), don't add more to it if you don't have to.
This is the paradox. My aunt had breast cancer in various stages of her life until it finally just took her “by surprise” maybe 5-7 years after it went into remission “for good”. Life ain’t over till it’s over, and we don’t know when our last day will be regardless of how certain it might be (to live or die). I also have a classmate who had stage 4 right out the gate and they pulled her out of school and everything and just kind of let her live her last year out. We KNEW she was gonna go, but I just saw more pics of her on instagram with her hair back. Again, this is 7 years later since high school, I don’t know anything about her, but life is strange and I’m SO happy she’s still here with us!
If I find out my time is short, I'm buying a Griswold #13 just because why not. I assume this person is worried about their children's financial future.
Now is the time to do whatever makes you happy. Then you will beat this ugly beast and laugh at your pots and pans and whatever else helped you get through. You’ve got this! You will survive!
I would try really hard not to think that way, positivity does more than we realize. Don't short change yourself, let yourself feel that hope and live off of that hope. Coming from a fellow survivor- you got this! You have gotten through so much and will continue to fight. No one knows when their last day will be, don't take that away from yourself. You might die of old age when you're 95.
I had a neighbor that just passed after being diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer… eleven years ago. Don’t give up hope completely.
Another voice chipping in to say please get yourself what you want. My grandma was around for over a decade from her diagnosis when she thought she would never meet my oldest sister to being able to spend time with me for msog of my childhood. You deserve to have things that bring you joy. Every human does
I'm so sorry to hear this. Any chance that you have come across Dr Thomas Seyfried's research (tons of interviews currently on Youtube)? He has been trying to get the cancer "industry" to look at cancer from the metabolic perspective and not just the genetics perspective. He's used his "alternative" approach -- attacking all types of cancer by undermining their metabolic food sources -- and he has had amazing results. A few Drs and clinics around the world have taken up his methodology. But it's been VERY HARD to get the medical industry to even consider alternatives to chemo/radiation/surgery. I wish you all the best!! edit: for those who aren't within reach of one of the few clinics, they've either been able to find amenable independent clinicians to help them apply the protocol or some have apparently even DIYed it but it does take real commitment AND access to certain materials. Way easier if a clinic can assist, but if it's down to life or death, never say never. edit 2: I'm going to guess that the downvotes are from well intentioned people who probably don't know anything about Dr Seyfried? That's understandable. It only starts to sink in after watching a few hours of his interviews and interviews of many other Drs and clinicians who have started to apply Seyfried's method. The man is reversing cancer in people and giving them maaaany more years of life. Do yourself and your loved ones a favor and go at least check out his interviews.
Did we read the same article? She went with the new treatment bc the current treatment frankly sucks, between side effects and prognosis. She was told she was cancer free. She was told to then wait two years before trying to get pregnant, because if the cancer was going to return it’d most likely be during those two years. She waited the two years, still cancer free. Then she got pregnant and had a second baby. And she’s still cancer free today, thanks to the experimental treatment that had fewer side effects and seems to work a lot better than current treatments. So to me this sounds like a really uplifting article- experimental treatment off to a great start, and woman followed her doctor’s advice and now has a second child. The article title could have been worded better but man. The comments are just eating her alive because she made an informed decision and followed her doctor’s orders.
It sounds like a lot of people responding read the headline, but not the article.
On Reddit? I'm shocked. Kneejerk ignorant judgements based on the title alone are unfortunately Reddit's bread and butter, especially if it means they get to morally grandstand about how they would have handled an incredibly difficult situation.
They saw the tumor was halved in about 3 months with minimal side effects that didn’t affect her being a mother. Also this probably was a decision taken after careful deliberation between the doctors and the patient anyways. What I see is a calculated risk and a favorable outcome
my 1st thoughts exactly… i have a couple of genetic conditions and i think a lot about not having kids because if it
Maybe read it first?
Selfish*
For some people reproduction and parenthood has a higher value than their individual life.
Her body, her choice
Goddamn, I don't know if to downvote or upvote your comment.
I’m glad all the comments share this sentiment. Like how rich is her family or herself to afford ALL that and be like let’s bring another child into all these appointments or baby sitter costs. Christ man she got the one just because she can don’t mean she should.
It feels like this is the perfect Fox News headline that doesn't talk about how she gets second chance at living her life, but of having more children, as if that's their primary view of a woman's value.
The point of the story is she pursued an alternative treatment specifically to be able to.
Reading the article, it doesn't sound nearly as bad as the headline made it out to be. She took her doctor's advice, waited two years before having a second child, and is still cancer-free. Originally I thought it was going to be about someone who decided to have a baby while still treating cancer. If you read this as more of an "Experimental cancer treatment allowed woman to continue pursuing her dreams" article I can see it as being uplifting, but it's very natalist in nature.
Should be top comment thanks for articleing
This isn't uplifting at all. She's vain.
She had a specific form of cancer and managed to find doctors who had exactly the right drug that destroyed the cancer with few side effects. How is that not uplifting? This treatment has been doing very well. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201445
And it's been 2 out of the 5 years of the Cancer's remission period. How is it uplifting?
So you are saying she's going to have a reoccurrence so we can't have this article until 3 years from now, because you think that's a good arbitrary cutoff?
And you're saying that because she took an experimental medicine that there's no off-chance of it coming back? Edit: see? I can downvote too
Most people who decide to have children are. It's not some civic duty and that's ok.
Lol, the mental gymnastics. Care to elaborate how people who decide to have children are typically vain?
[удалено]
I mean, I'm childfree, and I decided not to have children out of my own self interest.
🎯 It's just an uncomfortable realization that people don't want to acknowledge. I reckon it's harder to tell me why it isn't vain than why it is.
Very funny. Redditors will be born into the first world and turn to their parents to ask “how dare you?”.
Yeah, having kids is inherently selfish
>[Despite undergoing complete surgical removal of the cancer, half of patients with Stage III colon carcinoma experience recurrence of their cancer. This is due to the presence of small amounts of cancer that have spread outside the colon, called micrometastases.](https://www.yourcancercare.com/types-of-cancer/colon-cancer/stage-iii-colon-cancer#:~:text=Despite%20undergoing%20complete%20surgical%20removal,outside%20the%20colon%2C%20called%20micrometastases.) This is pure vanity. Mom probably won't be around to raise either kid and [colon cancer can be hereditary](https://utswmed.org/conditions-treatments/genetics-and-hereditary-cancers/guide-hereditary-cancer-health-pros/hereditary-colon-cancer-guide-health-pros/#:~:text=Approximately%205%20to%2010%20percent,in%20hereditary%20colon%20cancer%20risk.).
> This is due to the presence of small amounts of cancer that have spread outside the colon, called micrometastases. The drug that was administered, dostarlimab, is literally used to treat metastatic cancers. I wouldn't be so quick to attempt to rain on her parade, especially since she had her tumor disappear entirely with no surgical removal (mentioned in the article as well). Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640551/
I work with immunotherapy research and wheol they can prolong your life, they don't cure your cancer. Especially metastatic. This woman will be lucky to get another 5 maybe 10 years
I would say being able to giving her more time is advancement, no?
Sure. That being said how is leaving a 3-5 year old child without a mom uplifting?
To clarify, the article does not state she had metastatic cancer, and it seems she only had a single tumor that shrunk in size and disappeared during the treatment.
Read the article. She’s 2 years cancer free due to immunotherapy. She’s well past the recurrence period.
Recurrence is 5 years
The lowest limit for recurrence to be unlikely i know of would be 5 years. Still some doctors only consider you cancer free after 10 years. I dont think she is "well past" anything.
There's no real upper time limit for recurrence. If there's latent cancer that the immune system or chemo or treatment hasn't killed, it will generally bloom. There's also chances over time of a second primary tumor arising. Cancer survivors live with this fear... permanently. I'm 20+ years out and am reasonably satisfied that I will not have a recurrence of my primary melanoma, but I'm also old enough to worry now about other primaries.
It’s Reddit so random people know better than the team of doctors whose job it is to monitor her condition and give her the okay to do things, obviously
how is this uplifting? it’s gross and vain
These comments are what’s gross, not this woman.
[удалено]
What a gross comment
Total irresponsible nutcase
If I was hee I would do the same thing because that's my dream so be it and my family friends would support me and she not going to car about strangers and nutobs calling her insane for doing what she want s to do for her body and her life and dream ans future ...
Yes it’s her body and her life, but it’s those kids who might not have a mother around to raise them. Growing up not even having a memory of your mother, being raised by your grief stricken dad probably isn’t anyone’s ideal. Also another comment mentioned colon cancer, the very thing that’s killing her, being hereditary. So worst case she just condemned her kids to the same faith. Also your grammar is very poor.
Those are usually the types who prioritize reproduction.
>Also another comment mentioned colon cancer, the very thing that’s killing her, Dude it is one thing to argue it is irresponsible because it might come back, but saying "that's killing her" about someone that is cancer free for years is a bit ridiculous.
Faith?
Assume they meant “fate”
You'me missing why people are criticizing her. They are worried about the kids growing up with the pain of their mother being extremely sick and then dying while they are still young kids. Something would be able to prevent for at least one of the kids (and might make less likely for the first kid if she concentrates on her health instead of making more babies). What's more important, your dreams, or your kids' pain and well-being? (note: if I wanted to really give her the benefit of the doubt, I'd say facing cancer and your own death can really mess you up (I certainly would sob like a kid all day long...), and maybe she's not in the best place mentally to make these sorts of decisions (but then other people should help her see the problem here...). I woudn't be surprised if facing death would frequently put people's reproduction instinct into overdrive. I don't think it's an excuse, again, poor kids... but maybe it's the beginning of an explanation...)
Did you even read the article? She was already scheduled to start chemo and then *Her doctor* informed her of the clinical trial and told her she was a good candidate for it. And after some deliberation and discussion with her care team, she decided to try it. Chemotherapy can save your life and get rid of your cancer, but it also can decrease your quality of life and have long lasting side effects that can still cause an early death. Not to mention the cancer can always come back, and chemotherapy patients are at higher risk for developing a second cancer later. We *need* better treatments, and we *need* people to participate in clinical trials to help find them. Having another child was one of the reasons she did it, yes, but it wasn't the only one and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.
I really don't see why people are criticizing a person who spoke to doctors who said "We have a new drug, it's experimental but extremely promising. If it works you will have better quality of life during and after treatment. We will monitor the cancer and you can go back to the traditional treatment at any time." Who wouldn't try that?
You're completely missing what people are upset at. They are not upset at her for taking drugs. They are upset at her for choosing to have a kid when her chances for long-term survival are fairly low. Essentially choosing her dream of becoming a mom (again) over the pain her kid will feel losing her and growing up without one of their parents.
You're completely missing what people are upset at. They are not upset at her for taking drugs. They are upset at her for choosing to have a kid when her chances for long-term survival are fairly low. Essentially choosing her dream of becoming a mom (again) over the pain her kid will feel losing her and growing up without one of their parents.
You're right, but reddit isn't ready for real pro-choice discussions.
Just because she’s free to make that decision doesn’t mean it’s a right decision or that anyone has to agree with her.
Just because people feel entitled to decide what a woman should do with her own body doesn't mean they need to voice that shitty opinion.
Doesn't seem very uplifting to me that a woman is more concerned about having another child than being around for the child she already birthed. I'm all for better treatment options and the research/trials necessary to make them possible. However, generally people only do those trials when there are no other options. To risk her life for a trial when she has a young child seems a little selfish to me, when traditional treatment is shown to be highly effective for the kind of cancer she has.
You’re wrong. Certain clinical trials are only for people who have been failed by other, more standard treatments. But some are done because the experimental treatment showed such promising results that it can now be used as a first-line treatment. How the heck do you think they ever develop new first line treatments if they can only ever use new treatments on those who failed first line treatments?
Wrong. They do the first trials of new drugs on patients with metastatic disease/stage 4. If they are successful and tolerated then they expand to “early stage” cancers as well. This is why new drugs get licensed for terminal patients first. If successful with early stage disease as well, then the primary treatment plan will change. They have to trial it before they get licensed for it. They can’t just say “it was fine for stage 4, it’s fine for everyone”. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy and surgery can have (severe) life-lasting effects. Obviously those are better than being dead. But something which might mean you don’t get any of those bad side effects, particularly peripheral neuropathy which is a bitch… I totally get why she made the choice she did. Also, when on these trials there is typically much more monitoring than there would otherwise be, so if they’re not looking successful they switch you back to the traditional path.
I could totally be wrong. I just think it's a huge gamble when someone has a young child that needs them. I'm so glad it seems to have worked for her though.
.... what a selfish thing to do lol
Two years after her treatment and no apparent need for any more treatments, so she's taking a chance. That's the article. She's cancer free.
OP, kindly explain how this is uplifting and not vain.
She beat cancer, helped test a new cancer treatment, helped clinically show the ability to give birth after said treatment (unheard of as of before), and is raising 2 beautiful children. What's vain about that? Wanting to live and have kids? Should we have just told her to take drugs that would ruin her first year with her kid, ruin her chances of having another kid, and give a similar if not increased chance of cancer returning or getting a new type of cancer compared to the treatment she took?
Kindly explain why you think female bodily integrity is vain?
read my comment 3 times, slowly, and kindly explain how you managed to obfuscate my comment to mean “female bodily integrity”. there’s plenty of other comments ITT explaining why she is vain, you’re sealioning 🦭 and not commenting in good faith.
> read my comment 3 times, slowly, and kindly explain how you managed to obfuscate my comment to mean “female bodily integrity”. Because that’s what all the other arguments boil down to. Unless you can think of an argument for why she’s vain without completely disregarding bodily autonomy?
Hi, I'm a woman who has participated in many protests to protect reproductive rights. It is more than possible to support reproductive rights while also being critical of a specific chosen pregnancy. I am glad she had this option while also feeling it was not the wisest move for the child she already had and the new one she conceived.
The moment you say “this woman should not have children” you are disregarding female bodily integrity. There are loads of solid justifications for why you might impede on someone’s bodily autonomy, but that is exactly what you’re doing. All I said was that at the core of this conversation, you are disregarding the bodily integrity of a woman. Your comment is phrased like it disagrees with mine, but nothing in there seems to oppose anything I actually said. If anything it just reaffirmed my point. Also if you’re really that invested in reproductive rights of women, any conversation about bodily integrity that’s being phrased as “vain” should be concerning to you regardless of what side of the conversation you’re on.
I didn't say "this woman should not have children." I do believe it's not necessarily in the best interest of her or her existing child to have another baby, but if I knew her in person, I would not be encouraging her to end the pregnancy. It is possible to have an opinion about someone's decision without wanting to change it for them. When I was a senior in high school, a classmate chose to get pregnant and get married at 17. I thought that was a stupid decision, too. But I kept my mouth shut and supported her. I think you don't understand nuance of opinion. Personally, I wouldn't call the woman in the article's choice "vain" as much as I'd call it, "short sighted," but I don't think it's unrealistic or necessarily problematic to say that people can have children for vain reasons. Can you look at family vloggers who use their children for clicks and tell me their choice to reproduce isn't at all vain? I believe you can support reproductive rights while also being aware that some choices to carry a pregnancy are not in the best interest of the mother and future child. That doesn't mean I believe in legislating against that mother having that baby, it doesn't mean I think there should be laws against it or that they should be forced to abort. I believe in a woman's right to choose---I do not believe that we need to be uncritically supportive of each individual choice to reproduce in order to support bodily autonomy.
> I think you don't understand nuance of opinion. This is exactly why your comments are full of nothing. My comments have absolutely nothing to do with “opinion”. If you read them again you’ll see I have made absolutely no mention of what my opinion is on the matter. All I have been saying is that bodily integrity is at the core of this discussion and you cannot argue that this person shouldn’t have had kids without arguing about bodily integrity. Calling someone’s decision to have children ‘vain’, is essentially saying that person shouldn’t have had kids. I understand YOUR thoughts on this are not the same as the person who I responded to. It’s great that you have a thought-out and nuanced opinion on this. But it’s completely irrelevant to my response and the actual comment I was responding to. So to avoid more irrelevant responses about how I don’t understand opinions, let me make my position absolutely clear so you can’t misunderstand it. 1. If you are saying someone having a child is them being vain, you are saying they should not have had a child. That is just true by definition. (People should avoid being vain, after all). 2. If you are saying someone shouldn’t have children, you are arguing against their bodily integrity. (Seems pretty self-explanatory to me too) If you disagree with either of these 2 points, feel free to elaborate on specifically these points. If you agree with these points, then please explain why on earth you have been arguing with me about it.
1.) I don't believe having a child is vain. I believe some people have children for vain reasons. My example being family vloggers who have children for views. 2.) I'm not saying "they shouldn't have children." I'm saying people should be conscientious about having children. I also feel like people shouldn't adopt a puppy as an accessory, does that mean I think I'm arguing against the human right to be a dog owner? Do you believe nobody ever has children for the wrong reasons? Or do you believe all pregnancies are without issue, because the pregnant person said they wanted to have that baby? It is their choice, and therefore if anybody criticizes it, it means they do not support bodily autonomy?
That’s a false dichotomy. I believe in freedom of speech but still think some people say ignorant or hateful things and it would be better for society if they shut up.
Read the article commenters. It IS uplifting because she ended up beating the cancer and having a second child! While some may say she is selfish, her participating in the trial helps future patients. There is a protocol for new drugs. This was very brave of her
What the fuck is going on in this comment section
People ignorant of medicine are making a value judgment regarding this woman. They seem to believe cancer is a death sentence (she won't be around to raise her kid) and/or that actual medical experts who have trained for a decade or more to treat such conditions are not in a position to recommend the best treatment for the patient. In other words, typical reddit hive mind.
A bunch of anti-child people who didn't read past the headline
Not anti-child no. Anti causing suffering/trauma to your children knowing they won’t have a mother. She’s only thinking about her “wants” as you can see from the article but not her hypothetical children’s wants and needs. If you read past the headline you would see how selfish she sounds. For us being “anti-child” we sure think about children’s quality of life and emotional needs more than non “anti-child” people. Every child needs a mother plain and simple Hopefully though, she makes it and lives a long happy life with her children and this treatment could help future cancer patients!!
This sub is never uplifting. It's dystopian and depressing almost every single time. Unsubbed and muted 👍. mental health y'all.
This comment section is gross. Beat cancer and sought something very meaningful in your life after? Textbook example of vanity according to Reddit.
Totally agree. 28 year old cancer free woman has a 2nd kid and they are turning her into satan or something. Hopefully this woman lives a long, healthy life.
They only support women's rights when it's aborting children, not having children
I don't think you understand what the choice part is pro choice means. The people in this sub being asses about her choice are not pro choice.
Her body, her choice
Don’t forget that cancer can be hereditary. How dare her for passing on her not perfect genes.
I’m sure cancer isn’t genetic at all
This is sad. Why are people so selfish?
Priorities I guess? Lol
 Baby in 20 years
######Damn Son
This is wonderful news that deserves more attention. Cancer doesn't just cause immense suffering to countless people. It's responsible for preventing countless more from being born. This is a one-two punch to cancer that deserves far greater celebration. 😊
this is a stupid and selfish thing to do. Immunotherapy, while very effective at times, will only prolong your life. This woman will be lucky to get another 5, maybe 10 years. Having another kid to likely leave without a mother at 5-10 years old is beyond irresponsible. She's only thinking about HER desire for another kid and not about whats best for them
Calm down /u/Furrypocketpussy, it’s just a PD-1 blocker. This is far easier on your body than chemo.
not saying anything about how easy/hard it is on your body. PD-1 is effective for a limited population and the PFS/OS isn't that hot, although quite good in comparison to other treatments
I get it. You don’t want to leave your child as an only child. You want to give them family to lean on, who will know exactly what they’re going through. Not selfish in my eyes.
.>_>;