Anna Marie has Breast Cancer

[kpmom]

5 minutes ago, meee said:

 

Sorry if this is a dumb or insensitive question, but I'm confused thay they seem to have known about this for awhile. She's already 36 weeks, can't she be induced, like, today? And since they saw the lump was growing couldn't they have induced at, say, 30-32 weeks and had a preemie who was pretty likely to survive and an extra 4-6 weeks of cancer treatment?

I'm definitely not a medical person, but from what Christopher wrote it looks like they had several consultations, but not a definitive diagnosis until recently.  Am I reading that right?

[3splenty]

Although I don't believe as they do, I hope and pray for their family, that they can find comfort and peace.  I also hope everyone can process this as they need to, in their own time and not as someone dictates.

Edited January 11, 2020 by 3splenty

[daisyjane1234]

3 minutes ago, kpmom said:

I'm definitely not a medical person, but from what Christopher wrote it looks like they had several consultations, but not a definitive diagnosis until recently.  Am I reading that right?

That was my understanding as well.  As I understood, a lump was discovered earlier in her pregnancy but it was initially unclear if it was related to hormones/pregnancy, or was more concerning.  Medical professionals kept a close eye on the lump and in recent weeks the lump started to demonstrate clear signs it was a growing tumour requiring immediate medical attention.

[usmcmom]

Christopher wrote that they were watching it closely after seeing a doctor early on.  We don’t know if that doctor made any recommendations at the time - recommendations that might have impacted the pregnancy.  I guess it is possible that Christopher and Anna Marie chose to wait on any further steps until it was safe to deliver the baby. 
 

I really hope that any doctor that was aware of a lump would order some testing right away.  Regardless of nursing/hormone issues, a doctor should always recommend a second look of some kind, in my opinion.  

[Lalabee]

I want to clear up some misconceptions about Samaritan's Ministries. My family has belonged to SM since 2013. I'm not sure where some of the posters are getting their information, but it is most definitely NOT a case of "rack up medical bills and hope someone will chip in to pay them". Members are assigned shares each month. We are told the name and medical situation (being treated for pneumonia, having a baby, diabetic complications, etc.) and *required* to send a check to that family. If you don't send a check, your membership would be cancelled very quickly. Yes, just like regular health insurance, there are certain things that SM won't automatically covered (certain medical devices, orthodontists, etc. )and in those cases members can submit it as an extra need and in those cases only, others can contribute if they feel led. 

Clinics and hospitals don't mind giving discounts for cash payments at all. It saves them the trouble of dealing with the insurance company, etc.

And concern about saying no to chemo because of a women's hair?? I can't imagine what the basis for that comment was. Of course not! SM is not some cult telling it's members what to do in specific medical situations. It's a health care sharing ministry with freedom to choose doctors, tests, hospitals, treatments, etc.

I would be happy to answer questions you have. I totally understand where many people would think SM is not for them, but please base that opinion on facts. Thanks! 

I am heartsick for all the Maxwells. No matter the outcome, this is such a devastating journey to walk on. 

[closetcagebaby]

1 hour ago, Lalabee said:

I want to clear up some misconceptions about Samaritan's Ministries. My family has belonged to SM since 2013. I'm not sure where some of the posters are getting their information, but it is most definitely NOT a case of "rack up medical bills and hope someone will chip in to pay them". Members are assigned shares each month. We are told the name and medical situation (being treated for pneumonia, having a baby, diabetic complications, etc.) and *required* to send a check to that family. If you don't send a check, your membership would be cancelled very quickly. Yes, just like regular health insurance, there are certain things that SM won't automatically covered (certain medical devices, orthodontists, etc. )and in those cases members can submit it as an extra need and in those cases only, others can contribute if they feel led. 

Clinics and hospitals don't mind giving discounts for cash payments at all. It saves them the trouble of dealing with the insurance company, etc.

And concern about saying no to chemo because of a women's hair?? I can't imagine what the basis for that comment was. Of course not! SM is not some cult telling it's members what to do in specific medical situations. It's a health care sharing ministry with freedom to choose doctors, tests, hospitals, treatments, etc.

I would be happy to answer questions you have. I totally understand where many people would think SM is not for them, but please base that opinion on facts. Thanks! 

I am heartsick for all the Maxwells. No matter the outcome, this is such a devastating journey to walk on. 

I mean, they won’t cover many health issues for people with uteruses or a lot of healthcare for adopted children. That’s pretty scammy and cultish to me. Not to mention it doesn’t cover preventative care, which I assume doesn’t encourage people to seek routine checkups very often. 

[Dandruff]

I think they chose to take the approach of the lump being due to pregnancy hormones, because it reasonably could have been.  When they noticed a change they took prompt action.  It still seemed to take a surgeon giving them a "99% cancer" opinion for them to decide to deliver early and treat, which suggests to me that the further development of the fetus was considered of higher priority than the possibility of cancer...until a medical professional laid it on the line.  I can understand them being afraid and can also understand them questioning the probability of it being cancer due to her age.  I wonder how quickly she would have had the lump diagnosed and treated had she not been pregnant.

[PennySycamore]

46 minutes ago, closetcagebaby said:

I mean, they won’t cover many health issues for people with uteruses or a lot of healthcare for adopted children. That’s pretty scammy and cultish to me. Not to mention it doesn’t cover preventative care, which I assume doesn’t encourage people to seek routine checkups very often. 

As the grandmother of two wonderful little girls who joined our family through adoption , FUCK YOU, SCAMARITAN!!

 

ETA:  @Lalabee, other medical practices may accept cost-sharing programs like Scamaritan, but the practice I go to does not.  

Edited January 11, 2020 by PennySycamore

[llg1234]

2 hours ago, usmcmom said:

Christopher wrote that they were watching it closely after seeing a doctor early on.  We don’t know if that doctor made any recommendations at the time - recommendations that might have impacted the pregnancy.  I guess it is possible that Christopher and Anna Marie chose to wait on any further steps until it was safe to deliver the baby. 
 

I really hope that any doctor that was aware of a lump would order some testing right away.  Regardless of nursing/hormone issues, a doctor should always recommend a second look of some kind, in my opinion.  

This is part of why I'm a bit confused. Why wasn't this lump biopsied from the get go? It can be a bit expensive (~$500 for a needle Bx), but unless there are risks to the baby (which there could be, idk), why not rule out things early on?

[Bethy]

47 minutes ago, closetcagebaby said:

I mean, they won’t cover many health issues for people with uteruses or a lot of healthcare for adopted children. That’s pretty scammy and cultish to me. Not to mention it doesn’t cover preventative care, which I assume doesn’t encourage people to seek routine checkups very often. 

I googled "samaritan ministries cancer treatment" this morning and one of the first hits was a link to one of Scamaritan's own blog posts claiming that breast cancer is overdiagnosed and overtreated and most of those pesky DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) cases can be ignored because they were maybe possibly not going to spread and the person maybe possibly would have lived a bunch of years without treatment anyway. Smells like an organization that wants to avoid paying by saying "la la la I don't hear you" to diagnoses of actual diseases.

[PennySycamore]

Hmmm.. .   wasn't the type of breast cancer that Nancy Reagan had ductal carcinoma in situ?  Nancy was not taking any chances of not treating it.  She had a mastectomy.  Nancy, btw, may have saved lives other than her own.  Many woman were spurred by her experience to get their mammograms.  (Reminder to self:  call Pearlie Harris on Monday to schedule mine.)  

[meee]

42 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I think they chose to take the approach of the lump being due to pregnancy hormones, because it reasonably could have been.  When they noticed a change they took prompt action.  It still seemed to take a surgeon giving them a "99% cancer" opinion for them to decide to deliver early and treat, which suggests to me that the further development of the fetus was considered of higher priority than the possibility of cancer...until a medical professional laid it on the line.  I can understand them being afraid and can also understand them questioning the probability of it being cancer due to her age.  I wonder how quickly she would have had the lump diagnosed and treated had she not been pregnant.

And even now they are saying "deliver as soon as it's safe." If they were told about cancer on Wednesday, and baby is already 36 weeks, why don't they have an induction scheduled for, like, right now? I'm so confused. 

Also, does "99% sure it's cancer" ever turn out not to be? What does the 1% end up being?

[Dysfundamental]

7 hours ago, Odd1Out said:

Not a fan of the Scamaritan (can’t even think of the real name now, lol) but Obamacare? Where they have monthly premiums + high deductible + plans that barely pay for anything? Doesn’t seem much better. They’d still be out a ton for medical expenses. 

Well, that’s on the insurance companies, not the government. Health insurance costs a lot of money, and yet insurance companies make huge profits and build skyscrapers and buy the naming rights to stadiums while people die for lack of care.

[daisyjane1234]

1 hour ago, Dandruff said:

which suggests to me that the further development of the fetus was considered of higher priority than the possibility of cancer...until a medical professional laid it on the line. 

...I wondered about that possibility as well.  Had further testing or intervention been recommended earlier on, but would threaten the fetus???? Now, to be fair, many non-fundie women would choose that route as well.

50 minutes ago, meee said:

and even now they are saying "deliver as soon as it's safe." If they were told about cancer on Wednesday, and baby is already 36 weeks, why don't they have an induction scheduled for, like, right now

Agreed.  It is my understanding that 36 weeks is pretty safe.  Anything after about 38 wks is considered term, and I would think risks are minimal for a 36 wk fetus.  I had wondered if AM was being induced the day of the post and was expecting a birth announcement imminently.

Edited January 11, 2020 by daisyjane1234

[ViolaSebastian]

3 hours ago, Lalabee said:

I want to clear up some misconceptions about Samaritan's Ministries. My family has belonged to SM since 2013. I'm not sure where some of the posters are getting their information, but it is most definitely NOT a case of "rack up medical bills and hope someone will chip in to pay them". Members are assigned shares each month. We are told the name and medical situation (being treated for pneumonia, having a baby, diabetic complications, etc.) and *required* to send a check to that family. If you don't send a check, your membership would be cancelled very quickly. Yes, just like regular health insurance, there are certain things that SM won't automatically covered (certain medical devices, orthodontists, etc. )and in those cases members can submit it as an extra need and in those cases only, others can contribute if they feel led. 

Clinics and hospitals don't mind giving discounts for cash payments at all. It saves them the trouble of dealing with the insurance company, etc.

And concern about saying no to chemo because of a women's hair?? I can't imagine what the basis for that comment was. Of course not! SM is not some cult telling it's members what to do in specific medical situations. It's a health care sharing ministry with freedom to choose doctors, tests, hospitals, treatments, etc.

I would be happy to answer questions you have. I totally understand where many people would think SM is not for them, but please base that opinion on facts. Thanks! 

I am heartsick for all the Maxwells. No matter the outcome, this is such a devastating journey to walk on. 

They refused to cover a good friend of mine's fallopian tube removal after she nearly died of an ectopic pregnancy. As if she had another choice.

[Sops2]

Some of the comments on their blog are recommending cutting out sugar and putting hydrogen peroxide in your drinks( cancer cells cannot survive in oxygen)???!

Another person said to listen to the doctors that God was sending to help them, and to have the strength to do what needs to be done.

I still don't understand why the lump wasn't biopsied earlier- it's as if they didn't want to know until the baby was safely here

 

 

[Caroline]

7 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

@OhNoNike,  I believe that you are correct about pregnancy itself exacerbating some forms of breast cancer.  Over the course of a woman's lifetime, having babies  lessens the risk of breast cancer as does many months (I'm not sure of the number of months, 13 perhaps?)  of breastfeeding, but pregnancy at the time of breast CA diagnosis, in and of itself, makes things worse.  

Btw, I am NOT fond of the way that some breastfeeding advocates like to parse this: " not breastfeeding increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer" .   I know that it's a matter of semantics, but the not breastfeeding wording seems to shame breast cancer patients that didn't breastfeed.  That's not helpful at all!

I was 39 when my first and only baby was born.  I had decided not to breastfeed for a variety of personal reasons.  Not one medical professional questioned my decision, but plenty of younger women did (acquaintances or women I worked with).  I was stunned by the debate and my response was a consistent "mind your own business".    My child is now a young adult, bright and very healthy.  Meanwhile, the critics who insisted that she would always be sick, acquire allergies, etc. are the ones whose children were always sick and had allergies.  There's no one way to do anything, and I wish women would just do what's right for them  and their situation and leave others who don't make the same decision alone. I imagine this pressure to rear children in a certain way is only exacerbated by the large numbers of mommy blogs out there.  Fortunately, these didn't exist when I was pregnant and a new parent.   (I always assumed that doctors and others didn't pressure me because it was apparent to them that I had my mind made up, had done my own analysis of the situation as it applied to me, and wasn't likely to not find plenty of other ways to bond with my child) Maybe a strange form of age-ism?   I don't know, but I'm disturbed to see younger people criticize and pressure each other so much.  Maybe this was an advantage of being an older first-time mom.  Other things that came up as my daughter grew didn't bother me nearly as much as the parents ten years younger than me at the time.   Didn't mean this to be so long.  It just reminded me of what happened to me a few decades ago

[nausicaa]

39 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

ETA:  @Lalabee, other medical practices may accept cost-sharing programs like Scamaritan, but the practice I go to does not.  

Dumb question but, do you need to tell your doctor you have Samaritan? Can you just go in and say "I'm paying out of pocket" and then submit the resulting bills to Samaritan?

[nvmbr02]

1 hour ago, meee said:

Also, does "99% sure it's cancer" ever turn out not to be? What does the 1% end up being?

I honestly do not know and I really don't know as much about breast cancer as I should considering we have 3 women in my family that are breast cancer survivors and 2 that passed away from breast cancer (though no breast cancer gene thankfully). 

BUT I do have a friend that discovered a lump a couple of years ago. Her mom died of breast cancer at age 30 and she was 30 when she found the lump so she was reasonably freaked out. She is a military dependent so she had to fight with tricare for the proper referrals for tests but eventually it was biopsied and even though it looked like cancer on the initial imagining it turned out to be something else. It did continue to grow and after is started to cause pain it was removed. It was then biopsied again and the biopsy was again negative for cancer. So it does happen. I can not remember what they said the "growth" was. I was just so relieved for her. 

[Foudeb]

Had a baby recently (UK) and the pressure to breastfeed is huge. There was a big breast is best campaign that brainwashed people a bit I think, might explain why more mature people are less rabidly pro-breast. There are good side effects - I got enough maternity leave to breastfeed, for one, and no one questioned my flashing my boobs out and about to shove them into baby's face. So that's good. But the guilt on women who cannot or chose not to is something else. It's like having a baby means your body is no longer yours. And at the same time women who do want to breastfeed but struggle to hardly get any support from doctors. I got told to just give formula when I struggled - when all that was needed was a different way to hold the baby. Basically it's just another way to tell women they're inadequate and / or bad. 

But I digress. That's devastating news. I hope they get her the treatment she needs, pronto. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Foudeb

[Piper]

I am feeling bad for Anna Marie and all of the Maxwells. This is such shitty news to receive. I am really hoping for a good outcome.

What makes it feel worse, to me, is all the talk of how everything medical will be paid for. Being Canadian, and having universal healthcare, it just seems so wrong to also have that added worry. ?

[JermajestyDuggar]

I’m pretty blunt and an asshole when pregnant or just had a baby. So I didn’t get too many comments about breastfeeding. I tried to breastfeed my first but had a medical problem that cut my milk production way back. So since the milk wasn’t there, I switched to formula. With my second kid, I didn’t have that same medical problem (thank goodness!) and produced just fine. My breastfed kid got way more colds as a baby compared to his older brother who was formula fed. The breast milk wasn’t some sort of miracle shield. My older child would get colds from his little germy friends and then spread those germs around the house. 

But one time I thought my baby had caught pink eye from his older brother. I read that breast milk could help so I squirted some in his eye And his little face was like, “wtf mom?”

Edited January 12, 2020 by JermajestyDuggar

[zee_four]

4 hours ago, Lalabee said:

I want to clear up some misconceptions about Samaritan's Ministries. My family has belonged to SM since 2013. I'm not sure where some of the posters are getting their information, but it is most definitely NOT a case of "rack up medical bills and hope someone will chip in to pay them". Members are assigned shares each month. We are told the name and medical situation (being treated for pneumonia, having a baby, diabetic complications, etc.) and *required* to send a check to that family. If you don't send a check, your membership would be cancelled very quickly. Yes, just like regular health insurance, there are certain things that SM won't automatically covered (certain medical devices, orthodontists, etc. )and in those cases members can submit it as an extra need and in those cases only, others can contribute if they feel led. 

Clinics and hospitals don't mind giving discounts for cash payments at all. It saves them the trouble of dealing with the insurance company, etc.

And concern about saying no to chemo because of a women's hair?? I can't imagine what the basis for that comment was. Of course not! SM is not some cult telling it's members what to do in specific medical situations. It's a health care sharing ministry with freedom to choose doctors, tests, hospitals, treatments, etc.

I would be happy to answer questions you have. I totally understand where many people would think SM is not for them, but please base that opinion on facts. Thanks! 

I am heartsick for all the Maxwells. No matter the outcome, this is such a devastating journey to walk on. 

Are you required to pay for hysterectomies? What if they're voluntary? How about hormonal contraception not for use as birth control but for polycystic ovarian syndrome? What about birth control to be used as birth control? What about treatment for HIV and AIDS? 

 

What about mental health treatment? Counseling? Anti-depressants? How about addiction recovery? Are you required to pay for in patient rehab? How about outpatient therapy for those in recovery? I'm part of a Medication Assisted Treatment program that's completely covered by my Colorado Medicaid. That's daily methadone dosing and long term treatment with a team of counselors, nurses and a doctor. 

 

My medicaid also reimburses me for transportation to all medicald appointments, along with everyone else in the western, very, very rural, part of my state. I sometimes drive 300 miles round trip for a single appointment in a day.

 

On the other hand are you required to pay for vasodialators? Aka. special pills for older men.

 

I'm sorry if this comes off as antagonist in anyway, please know I'm honestly curious. Thank you.

[Lalabee]

50 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Dumb question but, do you need to tell your doctor you have Samaritan? Can you just go in and say "I'm paying out of pocket" and then submit the resulting bills to Samaritan?

Not a dumb question. When you check in at the appt desk and they ask for insurance information, SM members say that they are cash-pay or self-pay. The doctor wouldn't know unless you told him/her. A few times we have told them when drs have said we need a certain test or medication. One time a dr. recommended a cream for a skin condition. She said "It's super expensive...about $250/tube...but your insurance should cover it." I told her we were self-pay and she said, "Oh, OK, then I'll prescribe this other cream. It does the same exact thing, but goes by a different name. It will cost you $45 out of pocket." Things like that have happened a few times. 

1 hour ago, ViolaSebastian said:

They refused to cover a good friend of mine's fallopian tube removal after she nearly died of an ectopic pregnancy. As if she had another choice.

I'm so sorry.  I don't agree with that. 

[Caroline]

1 hour ago, Foudeb said:

Had a baby recently (UK) and the pressure to breastfeed is huge. There was a big breast is best campaign that brainwashed people a bit I think, might explain why more mature people are less rabidly pro-breast. There are good side effects - I got enough maternity leave to breastfeed, for one, and no one questioned my flashing my boobs out and about to shove them into baby's face. So that's good. But the guilt on women who cannot or chose not to is something else. It's like having a baby means your body is no longer yours. And at the same time women who do want to breastfeed but struggle to hardly get any support from doctors. I got told to just give formula when I struggled - when all that was needed was a different way to hold the baby. Basically it's just another way to tell women they're inadequate and / or bad. 

But I digress. That's devastating news. I hope they get her the treatment she needs, pronto. 

One of my reason for not breast-feeding was the type of job I have and the fact that in the US women are not given enough time to recover and adjust to having a baby before they are expected to return to work. The pressure is silly, and I wonder why it's so extreme.  I am aware of the advantages but they weren't compelling enough for me to choose to do it.  You're right about everyone else wanting to control women's bodies.  It's despicable.