Posted on 03/26/2007 3:27:31 PM PDT by paltz
A cancer victim has accused his sister of condemning him to death by refusing to donate her bone marrow for a life-saving operation.
Father-of-three Simon Pretty is likely to die from leukaemia within months unless he receives a transplant.
His sister Helen, 43, is a perfect match but he says she has turned down the chance to save his life. Without the donation Mr Pretty – who has a rare tissue type – could be dead by the end of the year leaving his wife Jacqueline to raise their children Rebecca, eight, Jack, six and Benjamin, three.
he human resources manager from Mobberley, Cheshire, is receiving aggressive chemotherapy in an attempt to stay alive long enough to find another donor.
What a donor has to go through Doctors have said that to have the best chance of survival he must find a match by the end of the summer.
He has already exhausted the UK bone marrow register and doctors are looking for a match from strangers on international databases.
"I am on death row," said Mr Pretty. "I can’t believe that she would let my three children lose their father so unnecessarily by her actions.
Helen Pretty has declined to comment "We found a prayer in Rebecca’s coat which said: 'Please don’t let my daddy die from cancer'. That brought tears to my eyes."
Helen Pretty’s Cheshire home is less than ten miles away from the British Transplantation Society which campaigns to promote organ and bone marrow donation.
Her brother claims she agreed to be a donor after he was first diagnosed with the rare cancer, acute promyelocytic leukaemia, in July 2004. He went into remission but then suffered a relapse in February by which time she had changed her mind, he says.
The pair have never been close although their children are similar ages and play together.
Mr Pretty’s wife Jacqueline said: "It is appalling that Helen can stand by and watch her brother die knowing that she could do something to help him. The past few months have been hell."
Mrs Pretty approached her sister-in-law in an attempt to change her mind but lost her temper and was eventually arrested. No charge was brought.
Jacqueline Pretty said: "She opened the front door halfway and I told her that things were desperate and the children thought their daddy was going to die. She said 'Sorry, I am not doing it'. I asked her to give me a reason and she said 'I am putting my family first'.
"I explained that there were no risks involved. I was so upset and I said, 'Don’t you care if your brother dies?' She said 'It’s very sad', and smirked."
The family then received a letter from his sister’s solicitor asking them to keep their distance.
Parent governor Helen, 43, declined to comment yesterday.
She runs a private education business from her £380,00 home in Wilmslow, Cheshire, which she shares with her partner and her daughter, eight, and son, three.
Mr Pretty, who has two masters degrees, is studying for a PhD in industrial relations while being treated in hospital.
He said: "The treatment is tough and it is tortuous to go on with, especially as it would be unnecessary had she come forward. I have had a skin full of chemotherapy and all the side effects but I have a young family and I have to keep my spirits up for them."
Mr Pretty said he hoped that his plight would highlight the lack of bone marrow donors in the UK. He added: "Some people do not have a family member who is a match, even one who will not co-operate."
A spokesman for the Anthony Nolan Trust, which has a database of potential UK bone marrow donors, said: "About 30 per cent of patients could get a match from their own family – usually siblings.
"The chance of finding a match outside of family is very small and there are never enough donors."
A less than exact bone marrow match has a smaller chance of beating the cancer.
Trust chief executive Dr Steve McEwan added: "As with any medical procedure there are risks. However, we are not aware of long-term side effects of the process of donating bone marrow. Donors describe it as a very positive experience."
"His promise revoking sister is unquestionably the real bad actor in this scenario and her obvious glee in exacerbating his and his family's suffering deserves far stronger condemnation from any balanced perspective."
How in the heck do you know she's gleeful?!
She wasn't even interviewed!
I mean, if there was some quote like "Ha ha, I'm so happy to finally have a chance to get a dig in at the old codger, can't wait for him to die so I can have a picnic on his grave" I'd go for the "gleeful" bit, but a lot of people in this thread have suddenly turned into trans-atlantic mind readers.
"Because she said she would donate the marrow and then reneged without the courtesy of explaining why."
No no, you are mistaken.
She reneged without giving US, the GENERAL PUBLIC the courtesy of explaining why. We have no idea what she and her family have previously discussed, we really have no particular right to know, and she's not under any obligation to go to the presses with her personal life.
As I mentioned before, she was not interviewed, and at no point in this article has a chance to give her side.
According to the article, the dying man's wife asked for a reason and all she said was she had to put her own family first. If there were more to it, the woman wouldn't have been at her door, begging.
"If there were more to it, the woman wouldn't have been at her door, begging."
Quite a little psychic now, aren't you?
How do you know this, exactly? If there WAS more to it, wouldn't it be a great story for the wife to use to garner sympathy as well? Of course, I freely admit that's pure speculation on my part.
"BTW, the article also says she declined to comment. If she declines to comment, we can't be faulted for taking the word of those who would comment."
So because she doesn't want to air her public life to the presses all us armchair commentators get to decide any nasty stuff about her we want?
"Oh puhleeze!"
Oh please yourself. You're the one assuming things.
"You don't need to be a psychic to understand that the man and his wife are beside themselves, perplexed as to why the sister is doing this."
Yes, that's what they've decided to air to the media. Does that make it the unvarnished truth? I'd like to think you know better.
"It says in the story that the wife asked and she didn't give an answer, other than that she had to put her family first."
It says the wife asked at least that one time (the time she had to be dragged away by the po po incidentially), it does not enlighten us to any other myraid possiblities of conversations we are not privy to.
"If the wife knew more she would have said so."
Really? Would she? You know this person so well you can say for a fact that she couldn't possibly tell the media only the portions of things that make the sister look like a raging bitch?
"It is preposterous to think these people would go to the press if they knew there was a rational explanation for the sister's refusal to help save her dying brother"
Heh heh. What a nice, friendly, pleasant world you must live in.
"She was given an opportunity to comment and declined."
She has the right to her privacy.
my 2 cents.
I am bisased.
There is not much in the world that stands as perfect. A perfect match counts a something perfect.
It is also a perfect way to possibly save someone.
The opportunity is a gift in itsef.
A perfect gift and an opportunity to rise to something great.
Whatever thier differences are; that is something else.
To me, the one withholding is rejecting her chance to be great.
Prayers for all of them, what a mess.
You win.
I see your point.
You're missing the point entirely. If the couple were aware of a rational (or even embarrassing to them) reason the sister is denying her help, they wouldn't go to the press. To do so, they would have to presume the "other side" would never come out. Do they have the sister tied up and gagged? Do they have control over the press? If they went public, they had to have known it was possible "enlightening" information would become public.
"You know this person so well you can say for a fact that she couldn't possibly tell the media only the portions of things that make the sister look like a raging bitch?" I know that it would be foolish to tell the media only portions of things that make the sister look like a raging bitch, knowing that media is capable of uncovering other things. The fact that they were willing to go public, knowing this, and the fact that the sister declines to refute it, speaks volumes.
Yes, she does, indeed, have the right to privacy. And if that "privacy" is more important to her that looking like "a raging bitch", then she should enjoy it. But you can't fault people for drawing conclusions based on information she chooses not to refute.
Actually, if it was me, I would go to court to force her to give me the cells, if that failed, kidnapping would be the charge.
I would rather do jail time for kidnapping than die. Think about it, if this guy has little time left what threat is there to a kidnapping charge.
Would there be a possibility of a jury convicting him?
All this presupposes that the story is even close to accurate. I suspect the story may be highly inaccurate.
According to post #213, the marrow is extracted with a big needle -- they aren't cut open. He says in the nineties it was done under general anesthesia, but he is guessing that is more about the comfort of the donor than a necessity. I've given birth to four kids. The first 2, I delivered naturally without any pain killers. The last one, I had a C-section. I'm not saying I'd enjoy it, but I'm thinking I could handle taking a needle to save the life of my brother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.