Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it wasn't found accidentally - it's standard after an initial diagnosis of cancer at one body site to look elsewhere in the patient's body to see if the disease has already spread. And if Jimmy Carter has metastatic cancer in his brain which has not yet become symptomatic, treatment will slow their growth of those mets and delay the time when they DO become symptomatic (which they inevitably will).
Quote:
I seldom hear of chemotherapy as a way to improve the quality of one's life
You're not a practicing physician. Used judiciously, it often improves the patient's quality of life. Remember, cancer doesn't make people just gently fade away a la "Love Story"; the disease all by itself generally makes the patient miserably sick. Shrinking the tumors, even for just a little while, often helps reduce symptoms and makes the patient feel better. (Well, no, but better.)
First of all, I love Jimmy Carter and am very sorry to hear the news that he has metastatic cancer.
And I almost don't dare ask this question, so deeply ingrained is the conviction in this country that you MUST fight cancer with everything you have to the bitter end and beyond, but if he's really okay with his mortality and at peace with his diagnosis, why is he proceeding with treatments at age 90 when, frankly, the prognosis looks pretty dismal? Personally, I think I'd opt to just enjoy the rest of my days in peace.
Granted, I may be the only person on the planet who is skeptical of the "success" of radiation and chemotherapy; most people have a recurrence, so they're never actually "cured" and, while it may buy you more time, I personally believe it kills as many people as it saves while simultaneously wasting bazillions of dollars and torturing the poor patients in the process. But it's big bucks for big pharma, doctors, and hospitals -- and there's so much hype about "winning" and "losing" (I guess if it kills you, you're a loser instead of a "survivor," unless of course you've "bravely battled" it) -- that I think most people don't even realize that they have the option of NOT undergoing treatment and using natural remedies or just accepting it.
I believe it would almost be seen as "cowardly" or "dishonorable" to not submit to these treatments.
Interestingly, I've seen literature suggesting that not exposing yourself to these poisons may result in a longer (and certainly better, without all the harmful side effects) life and, in some cases, even remission.
I mean, at best -- even with a complete cure -- he has five good years left. It's not like he's twenty.
So why is he choosing to do this? I've heard "to set an example." What about setting an example of acceptance? "Because he does so much good." So, those who are useless shouldn't have treatment?
Any other theories?
There's no need to try and create ulterior motives for the man's actions.
I guess he wants those five years (or two years, or eight years, or whatever it works out to be - you're flat-out wrong that people can't live meaningful lives after 95) to continuing enjoying time with his wife, his children, his grandchildren, and his work - he is as busy at 90 as most people are in the prime of their lives - combined with the fact that, apparently, the chances his physicians have given him of successfully fighting the cancer are worth the drawbacks to the treatment he'll endure (and none of us know what those drawbacks will be - treatment varies with individuals and types of cancer and the current state of the cancer, and individual reactions to it vary as well).
And this mystifies you? Really? You just can't comprehend the possibility that the odds of successfully fighting his cancer are more compelling to Jimmy Carter than just rolling over and dying?
"Rolling over and dying." Like that's a failure. Guess what: we're all gonna die! Especially after 90.
And, right; found during a scan looking for it, but it's not causing symptoms. Ergo, I don't believe the treatment targeting his brain is to relieve symptoms he's not having.
Actually, the treatment itself will interfere with his productivity; he announced that he's cutting his work schedule way back. Will he return? Maybe or maybe not. A lot can go wrong at 90. But he's okay NOW and could still be working NOW.
Yes, people can live meaningful lives at 95, but not dying people.
Will it cure him, buy him time, or just make him sick for what time is left to him?
I simply wonder if anyone ever considers the choice or just automatically defers to treatment.
Even, apparently, people who are reconciled to dying.
Last edited by otterhere; 08-21-2015 at 03:48 PM..
He isn't going to have chemo, based on what I read. He'll be treated with radiation and immunotherapy - a relatively easy protocol compared with chemo.
He's very active for his age. He may figure if he can get another few years on this earth to accomplish more, he would like to do that.
Didn't care for him as president, but he's been one hell of a humanitarian. I wish him and his family the best of luck.
How fast is this cancer growing or spreading? Would he actually survive another five years without any intervention at all? It's yet another question. But an oncologist isn't likely to say, "I recommend we do nothing" because cancer treatment is what an oncologist does.
See? " Rolling over and dying." Like that's a failure. Guess what: we're all gonna die!
And, right; found during a scan, but it's not causing symptoms. Ergo, I don't believe the treatment targeting his brain is to relieve symptoms he's not having.
Actually, the treatment itself will cut into his productivity; he announced that he's cutting his work schedule way back. Will he return? Maybe or maybe not. A lot can go wrong at 90. But he's okay NOW and could still be working now.
Yes, people can live meaningful lives at 95, but not dying people.
Will it cure him, buy him time, or just make him sick for what time is left to him?
I simply wonder if anyone ever considers the choice or just automatically defers to treatment. Even, apparently, people who are reconciled to their mortality.
You really wonder that? Have you missed the articles about people who refuse treatment knowing it would reduce the quality of their lives?
And, right; found during a scan looking for it, but it's not causing symptoms. Ergo, I don't believe the treatment targeting his brain is to relieve symptoms he's not having.
In Jimmy Carter's case, it's to prevent him from developing symptoms (which inevitably happens as the metastases grow in size, unless the person is "lucky' enough to die before the tumors in the brain get big).
Quote:
Actually, the treatment itself will interfere with his productivity...
So will the cancer.
Quote:
Will it cure him, buy him time, or just make him sick for what time is left to him?
It won't cure him. With luck, it will buy him some additional quality time, but of course that's not guaranteed. Nothing in medicine ever is.
Quote:
I simply wonder if anyone ever considers the choice or just automatically defers to treatment.
LOTS of people consider the choice and opt for only palliative treatment or in rare cases for no treatment at all. It's not unusual, contrary to what you seem to think.
"Rolling over and dying." Like that's a failure. Guess what: we're all gonna die! Especially after 90.
And, right; found during a scan looking for it, but it's not causing symptoms. Ergo, I don't believe the treatment targeting his brain is to relieve symptoms he's not having.
Actually, the treatment itself will interfere with his productivity; he announced that he's cutting his work schedule way back. Will he return? Maybe or maybe not. A lot can go wrong at 90. But he's okay NOW and could still be working NOW.
Yes, people can live meaningful lives at 95, but not dying people.
Will it cure him, buy him time, or just make him sick for what time is left to him?
I simply wonder if anyone ever considers the choice or just automatically defers to treatment.
Even, apparently, people who are reconciled to dying.
Oh my. You think think reconciled to dying means to stop caring what treatment would benefit a person??
Really? You don't think a man as smart as President Carter is capable of asking himself whether treatment is worth the pain? I would bet my last dollar that every patient has this discussion about treatment.
His decision making is not circular- your questions are very much so!
There is more to value than the exterior view of a person's life.
That is what you are evaluating- how his life looks from your view. A view that includes (tell me if I am reading you wrong) that a person after a certain age loses the will to fight against cancer or other life threatening illiness? That rolling over is the only choice?
For you to say someone fighting cancer at 90 cannot have a worthwhile life is short sighted.
How fast is this cancer growing or spreading? Would he actually survive another five years without any intervention at all? It's yet another question. But an oncologist isn't likely to say, "I recommend we do nothing" because cancer treatment is what an oncologist does.
This is something you will not ever know. We can debate doctors telling patients the whole truth vs sugar coating it.
You are again looking from the outside at a inner decision made in privacy.
Our debate would be about the statisics of treatment that has no bearing on President Carter. In other words, it's pointless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
