"And for the life of the mother..."

by Keli Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:26 am

Mother sacrificed her life by refusing cancer treatment so her premature baby would live
Daily Mail ^ | January 25, 2008 | Andrew Levy

A mother made the ultimate sacrfice by refusing cancer treatment to give birth to a healthy baby boy. Lorraine Allard was told four months into the pregnancy the devastating news that she was in the advanced stages of cancer. A further blow came when doctors advised her to terminate the foetus, which was 23 weeks old, and start chemotherapy straight away.

Instead, she insisted on waiting long enough to give her unborn son a chance to survive, telling her husband, Martyn: "If I am going to die, my baby is going to live."

A Caesarian section was scheduled at 26 weeks but Mrs Allard, 33, went into premature labour a week before and Liam was born on November 18.

She then began chemotherapy but passed away on January 18, having left her sickbed a handful of times to cradle her son in her arms beside his incubator.

Yesterday, Mr Allard said: "Lorraine was positive all the way through. She had strength for both of us. I can't begin to describe how brave she was. Towards the end we knew things weren't going well but she was overjoyed that she had given life to Liam."

Mr Allard, 34, an oil field technician from St Olaves, near near Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, and his wife already had three daughters, Leah, ten, Amy, eight, and Courtney, 20 months, when they learned they were expecting their first boy.

"We were going to have the full set and didn't plan to have any more children after that," Mr Allard said. But in October last year, Mrs Allard started getting stomach cramps and tests at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston revealed her liver was riddled with malignant tumours.

It is believed the disease spread from bowel cancer that had been growing unnoticed for years. Mr Allard said: "The doctors said they couldn't do anything because she was pregnant. She told them straight away they were not going to get rid of it. She'd have lost the will to fight."

His wife went into labour just a couple of weeks after the diagnosis and gave birth at the Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Hospital in Norwich.

"He was so tiny, just 1lb 11oz, so the nurse grabbed him and allowed Lorraine to give him a little kiss before he was taken to an incubator," Mr Allard said.

"She was so emotional. She had been so determined to give him the best chance and was happy that he had been born naturally, which meant she wouldn't have to recover for a couple of weeks after a Caesarian before beginning the chemotherapy."

The course began almost straight away and Mrs Allard spent her time recuperating at home, apart from four visits to her newborn son.

The first time was when he was two weeks old, during which a treasured photo of her cuddling him was taken.

Liam has responded well to his care and it is hoped he will be released from hospital in early March. But his mother's health began to deteriorate just before Christmas and a CT scan on January 17 revealed the tumours were still growing. She died the following day.

Mr Allard said: "The doctors had said the cancer was no longer curable, although they were trying to shrink the tumours which they thought might give her a couple of years.

"On the day Lorraine died she hadn't eaten for two weeks and couldn't drink. I laid beside her and she was gripping my hand quite tight. We were like that for about half an hour.

"I could feel against my chest that her heart was slowing down. She just slipped away after that. It was very peaceful."

He added: "When Liam is old enough, I won't tell him that Lorraine gave her life for him but I will say she made sure he had a good chance of life. She told me she didn't want him to feel bad about it."

Mrs Allard's father, Tom Berry, said: "I was overwhelmed by the way Lorraine took it. She lived for her husband and children. She was a big personality with a heart of gold."

Dozens of friends and family will say a final emotional goodbye to Lorraine at her funeral on February 4th in the same Hopton church where she married Martyn, her partner since she was 16.

by TerryRC Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:27 am

And now that newborn and her other kids are without a mother.

Good parenting, there, Lou!

by Keli Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:29 am

TerryRC wrote:And now that newborn and her other kids are without a mother.

Good parenting, there, Lou!

TerryRC,

I have been accused of being cruel and heartless in some of my remarks; however, I think you take the cake today by this remark. Congratulations...

by TerryRC Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:32 am

Oh, really.

That woman didn't have a responsibility to her living children, some of them still quite young?

I stand EXACTLY by what I said.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:42 am

TerryRC wrote:Oh, really.

That woman didn't have a responsibility to her living children, some of them still quite young?

I stand EXACTLY by what I said.

That woman was going to die any way. What benefit would she have been to her born children? Perhaps another 6 months with her sick from chemo, radiation, and the cancer itself?

Keli and you both may think I take that cake for good when I give you my honest thoughts on this woman and what she did. She was being a mom, not a hero. I see nothing heroic in what she did at all.

RC, I don't know how many children you have, but if you have more than two this should be a no brainer for you. If you have 3 kids, you wouldn't risk your life to save one of them, potentially leaving the others without a father? Of course you would and it wouldn't make you a hero either.

by TerryRC Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:49 am

That woman was going to die any way. What benefit would she have been to her born children? Perhaps another 6 months with her sick from chemo, radiation, and the cancer itself?

I did not get that from the article.

RC, I don't know how many children you have, but if you have more than two this should be a no brainer for you. If you have 3 kids, you wouldn't risk your life to save one of them, potentially leaving the others without a father? Of course you would and it wouldn't make you a hero either.

I see an embryo as human potential, not human. My living children take precedence over "possible" children.

I'm sorry that this woman is dead. It was also her choice. Her kids now have no mother, not for another moment.

You can idolize her if you choose. I do not choose to do so. I look at it as a socially acceptable form of suicide.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:00 am

I just told you I don't think she's a hero. She was just being a mother.

I'd also like to point out that the scientific community does not consider an unborn child at 23 weeks gestation an embryo. Liam had a beating heart, a functioning brain, and all the other things that make us human by that point.

by TerryRC Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:21 am

Lorraine Allard was told four months into the pregnancy the devastating news that she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Sixteen weeks is not 23 weeks, at least not by my math.

Was/IS she being a mother to her living kids?

We will never agree on this, so let the "cruel and heartless" comments roll.

by **SheikBen** Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:19 pm

We can agree while not being disagreeable, and a hundred other cliches besides can be used! Seriously, we're all friends here.

I think this mother demonstrated the kind of integrity that is woefully lacking today, and I have to tell you that if my daughters ever act like her I will be so darned proud of them my heart would swell. Of course her death is a tragedy and I beg to God that such happens very rarely. I also think her response was so extraordinary that we need to put up a statue of her and find some way to support her children. Has there been a fund set up for them?

by **SheikBen** Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:20 pm

But, TerryRC, yes, she was being a mother to her kids. She was showing them what real integrity looks like, and I dare say that if they learn that lesson well, they will thrive under what will have to be far superior circumstances.

by TerryRC Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:40 pm

But, TerryRC, yes, she was being a mother to her kids. She was showing them what real integrity looks like, and I dare say that if they learn that lesson well, they will thrive under what will have to be far superior circumstances.

I'm sure that was a great consolation to them at her funeral.

This nothing more than a "socialy acceptable" form of suicide.

What if it had been a megacephalic child putting her at grave risk of death or the pregnancy was killing her via toxemia? Would that be also showing integrety when she stuck it out and put the burden on her little ones?

I'm sorry. In my opinion, she abandoned her living children.

Life is cruel and sometimes we get between Scilla and Charybdis. I don't think her responsibility to the unborn outweighed her responsibility to the already born.

by **SheikBen** Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:49 pm

But what can we really give our children anyway? There is no such thing as security--a millionaire can get a brain tumor and the money is gone, and even the finest doctors and the wealth of the Indies cannot beat the worst of situations. We can give our children a Christian worldview, a great example, and a realization that we love them and stand for virtue that transcends us, even to the point of death.

If we could really protect our children I'd be all for it, but security is an illusion, Terry. We cannot guarantee our next hour, let alone the entire years of our children's upbringing.

by TerryRC Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:09 pm

But what can we really give our children anyway? There is no such thing as security--a millionaire can get a brain tumor and the money is gone, and even the finest doctors and the wealth of the Indies cannot beat the worst of situations. We can give our children a Christian worldview, a great example, and a realization that we love them and stand for virtue that transcends us, even to the point of death.

Well, I prefer to give my children a Mayan worldview, so I don't have to worry about it past 21 December 2012. I'd teach them more about it, but Christians killed most of them [the Maya] and burned all but four of their books...

If we could really protect our children I'd be all for it, but security is an illusion, Terry. We cannot guarantee our next hour, let alone the entire years of our children's upbringing.

I agree, but you struggle to protect them to adulthood and devil take the odds.

by **SheikBen** Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:54 pm

TerryRC,

Do you think there is a way for us to in some way make up for what you view is a deficiency in the parenting of the mom? How do you see that happening?

by **Stephanie** Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:15 pm

TerryRC wrote:Lorraine Allard was told four months into the pregnancy the devastating news that she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Sixteen weeks is not 23 weeks, at least not by my math.

Was/IS she being a mother to her living kids?

We will never agree on this, so let the "cruel and heartless" comments roll.

A further blow came when doctors advised her to terminate the foetus, which was 23 weeks old, and start chemotherapy straight away.

From that article it would appear she was diagnosed with cancer around 18 weeks. For whatever reason, at least according to this article, chemo was recommended for several weeks. Nitpicking over a couple of weeks doesn't alter the facts. This woman had bowel cancer that had metasticized to her liver. She was, in all likelyhood, a dead woman walking so your assertion she made a decision to abandon her living children is without merit.

However, even if she were diagnosed with that cancer at 16 weeks and it hadn't spread, she chose to risk her life to save her child. That isn't a bad thing. It's a rather noble thing and parents risk their lives saving others all of the time.

Now you want to make the argument she left her born children childless and so she was a bad parent. What about the firefighter who is a father of 3 born children that runs into a burning building to save somebody else's mother, or father? Is he a bad parent too?

This mother taught her children just how valuable her children are to her. She chose the life of her child over her own. I don't believe for a minute that by the time your wife was 4 months pregnant you didn't already love your children. I'm sure you did love them more once you could hold them in your arms, but that doesn't mean you had no love for them a few months before. You had hopes and dreams for them by that time. I know I did.

by Cato Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:01 pm

There is no greater love than one who gives their life for another. The mother did exercise responsibility over her body and life. She made the choice to sacrifice her life for her children. I personally admire her and respect her for the choice she made. I don't think any of us have the right to judge this lady nor do I believe any of us have a remote idea of how hard this choice must have been. The plain turth is not one of us have been in the situation she found herself in and thus not one of us know what we would and would not do. The very best thing all of us can do is keep our mouths shut and any thoughts to ourselves.

Cato

by TerryRC Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:33 am

TerryRC,

Do you think there is a way for us to in some way make up for what you view is a deficiency in the parenting of the mom? How do you see that happening?

No, and I wouldn't force anyone to.

I'm just angry that a sub-culture places more value on the unborn than the born.

This woman was an idealist and she put her ideals and a baby that likely won't live over her living children.

Now she is a hero and a martyr to the pro-lifers and who bears the cost - her little babies.

I'm appalled. For that reason, I am labeled as cruel and heartless.

And, no, Willy, I will not keep my mouth shut about this.

by **Stephanie** Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:44 am

RC that baby is living. He's gaining weight and they expect him to be able to go home in March. She would have died anyway.

So what is your gripe? If this woman weren't pregnant when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer and decided to refuse chemo that wouldn't save her and lengthen her suffering you wouldn't be up in arms over it.

Is it because Liam lived and now you think he's putting a strain on Britian's socialized health care system? Is it because her other children missed out on a couple of extra months watching their mother suffer?

For a man who prides himself on being a logical scientist, you're not being very logical here.

by Cato Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:49 pm

[quote="TerryRC"]
Now she is a hero and a martyr to the pro-lifers and who bears the cost - her little babies.

quote]

So, life is now weighed in balance of cost. Paraphrasing from A Christmas Carol, Have you ever gave an consideration then, TerryRC, that in the eyes of Almighty God your life might just be worth far less than many millions like this poor lady's children. So before you start with cost, you might just want to consider the worth and value of your own life.

by SamCogar Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:17 am

TerryRC wrote:I'm just angry that a sub-culture places more value on the unborn than the born.

This woman was an idealist and she put her ideals and a baby that likely won't live over her living children.

Now she is a hero and a martyr to the pro-lifers and who bears the cost - her little babies.

I'm appalled. For that reason, I am labeled as cruel and heartless.

And, no, Willy, I will not keep my mouth shut about this.

A Caesarian section was scheduled at 26 weeks but Mrs Allard, 33, went into premature labour a week before and Liam was born on November 18.

So, the child was a 25 week preemie.

So, the mother was a gambler, betting her life against the life of her fetus, ...... and the odds were not in her favor.

If she "lost", ...... both her and her fetus "lost".

And the mother "lost", ...... and this discussion is a no-brainer

And I agree with TerryRC.

For those babies born before 35 weeks gestation, the risk of complications of prematurity increases as the gestational age decreases.

As an example, a baby born at 25 weeks gestation almost always has breathing, temperature, metabolic and other life threatening problems requiring use of mechanical ventilators and other life support treatments for days to months.

Although many 25 week gestation babies survive today, perhaps as high as 60-80%, about half of those who do survive will have disabilities in learning and thinking, cerebral palsy, visual and/or hearing problems.

Many will also have breathing problems that causes asthma-like symptoms and other medical problems. In addition, most babies born extremely premature will have problems growing.

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2002/extras/prematureFAQ.html

And the Public Schools are full of those "60-80% Survivors" ....... which insures Sasha and other like Teachers, Aides, etc. ..... guaranteed steady employment for years and years to come.

And which also guarantees all the other students will be "shortchanged" in their education.

the Devil's Advocate ......... Razz

.

by Cato Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:59 am

SamCogar wrote:
TerryRC wrote:I'm just angry that a sub-culture places more value on the unborn than the born.

This woman was an idealist and she put her ideals and a baby that likely won't live over her living children.

Now she is a hero and a martyr to the pro-lifers and who bears the cost - her little babies.

I'm appalled. For that reason, I am labeled as cruel and heartless.

And, no, Willy, I will not keep my mouth shut about this.

A Caesarian section was scheduled at 26 weeks but Mrs Allard, 33, went into premature labour a week before and Liam was born on November 18.

So, the child was a 25 week preemie.

So, the mother was a gambler, betting her life against the life of her fetus, ...... and the odds were not in her favor.

If she "lost", ...... both her and her fetus "lost".

And the mother "lost", ...... and this discussion is a no-brainer

And I agree with TerryRC.

For those babies born before 35 weeks gestation, the risk of complications of prematurity increases as the gestational age decreases.

As an example, a baby born at 25 weeks gestation almost always has breathing, temperature, metabolic and other life threatening problems requiring use of mechanical ventilators and other life support treatments for days to months.

Although many 25 week gestation babies survive today, perhaps as high as 60-80%, about half of those who do survive will have disabilities in learning and thinking, cerebral palsy, visual and/or hearing problems.

Many will also have breathing problems that causes asthma-like symptoms and other medical problems. In addition, most babies born extremely premature will have problems growing.

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2002/extras/prematureFAQ.html

And the Public Schools are full of those "60-80% Survivors" ....... which insures Sasha and other like Teachers, Aides, etc. ..... guaranteed steady employment for years and years to come.

And which also guarantees all the other students will be "shortchanged" in their education.

the Devil's Advocate .........

.

Wow, that very same speach was delievered in 1937 or 38 in Germany. Let's see that line of thinking resulted in the death of over 20,000,000 innocent people, whose only crime was that Hitler and his cohorts believed these people were unworthy of life and placed a strain on society.

As I pointed out to Terry, you just might want to consider where you are on the food chain before you start pointing fingers, because several might just be pointed at you.

Cheers!!!!

by TerryRC Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:47 am

Wow, that very same speach was delievered in 1937 or 38 in Germany. Let's see that line of thinking resulted in the death of over 20,000,000 innocent people, whose only crime was that Hitler and his cohorts believed these people were unworthy of life and placed a strain on society.

As I pointed out to Terry, you just might want to consider where you are on the food chain before you start pointing fingers, because several might just be pointed at you.

Spoken like someone that has no logical argument.

When you start bringing "Almighty God" and Hitler into the argument, you have strayed from the path of reason.

And to you, Steph, Liam weighed less than 1 1/2 lbs. when born. The jury is STILL out on whether he will survive.

If the mother had let them treat her cancer aggressively, she likely would have lived more than the "few months" that you give her.

I could care less about Britan's health care system. What I care about is people that turn their backs on their living children, for ANY reason.

by **Stephanie** Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:25 am

Nearly all, if not all, of us has lost someone to cancer. I can't help but believe you have witnessed what treating cancer aggressively does to a person. What benefit do you think she would have been to her children under such circumstances?

This woman wasn't told if she aborted her baby and began an aggressive treatment regimine she would survive. She was told it may extend her life. There's a huge difference.

As far as your assertion that we don't know if Liam will survive, we never know with any degree of certainty how long anyone will live. Liam is now two months old and has survived most of the greatest challenges. The odds are now greatly in his favor.

If he had been aborted, Mrs. Allard may or may not have survived longer. She would have been undergoing debilitating cancer treatments likely to leave her unable to care for her children. I have known some cancer patients not even allowed to live with their children due to the increased risk of infection.

Liam was alive the day his mother was told she had cancer. She was alive the day doctors offered to abort him so she could begin treatment for her terminal illness. She didn't turn her back on anybody.

by TerryRC Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:34 am

Nearly all, if not all, of us has lost someone to cancer. I can't help but believe you have witnessed what treating cancer aggressively does to a person. What benefit do you think she would have been to her children under such circumstances?

My mom is a cancer survivor of 22 years. I consider her to be a great benefit under most circumstances.

Liam was alive the day his mother was told she had cancer. She was alive the day doctors offered to abort him so she could begin treatment for her terminal illness. She didn't turn her back on anybody.

Hmmm... I expect her children may disagree.

When you look at "life" without taking into account the "quality" of it you aren't being intellectually honest.

by **Stephanie** Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:54 am

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is, Terry.

You wanted the mother to have her baby aborted so she could undergo painful, debilitating cancer treatments earlier and longer so her life would be extended. What do you suppose her quality of life would have been?

Who's not being honest here?

Liam has hope, he always had hope. His mother was given a death sentence and you are condemning her for not passing it on to her son.

by Sponsored content

"And for the life of the mother..."

"And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."

Re: "And for the life of the mother..."