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.
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?
But there is a place for it, if the person desires it. And it's not always about attempting a cure; the treatment can also be useful in slowing the progression of symptoms and keeping the person more comfortable until the end finally comes. Contrary to what many people believe, chemotherapy and radiation treatments (which are the two major forms of treatment people think of when they think of "cancer therapy") do NOT always make a person feel deathly ill or weak. Especially with radiation therapy, it's often the other way around.
I have a friend who is a 15 year survivor of breast cancer.. chemo was certainly worth it to her.. however, she was in her 40s when diagnosed so its not really the same as a 90 year old facing cancer.
I think its a personal choice. I work in a hospital and I see patients decline chemotherapy. So I don't think its really taboo to decline it. I am 60 and I would probably agree to chemo. My mother is 87.. I think she would opt for chemotherapy also but at age 87, or 90, I don't think I would pursue it.
But again, its up to him. I SO admit Jimmy Carter.. what an example he is of a good Christian man.
I will have to go find it to link it, but there was a recent article on CNN that interviewed several doctors on their preferred methods of dying and many of them stated that, after watching patients die badly after multiple treatments, they would choose to forgo such treatments.
"A Stanford University study shows almost 90 percent of doctors would forgo resuscitation and aggressive treatment if facing a terminal illness...The essay, "How Doctors Die," told the world that doctors are more likely to die at home with less aggressive care than most people get at the end of their lives."
Personally, at 90 years old, I wouldn't do it, especially if, as Carter has said, lived a "good life". 90 is a good life considering it's a rare person who makes it to 100 and many people don't even make it to retirement age. I would live as clean as possible, take something for pain management (maybe smoke a little pot!), enjoy what I can and die far away from a hospital if I can.
But WHY does the person, in this case, desire it? Because he feels he should? Which becomes a circular question, I guess.
Because he'd like to live a bit longer? Or (more likely) he wants to decrease bothersome symptoms like bone pain? Chemotherapy and radiation therapy can improve quality of life in many cases even if they don't actually extend it. The goal in those cases is palliation of symptoms, not cure.
Perhaps, but I don't think that's the case here. Wasn't it found more or less accidentally, at least where he's getting the treatment (in his brain)? I seldom hear of chemotherapy as a way to improve the quality of one's life -- unless it's completely watered down and ineffective, which has ALSO happened (scamming both patients and insurance companies).
My personal feeling is that, when it's really pretty hopeless, continuing to hope (or "fight," to use the lingo) robs you of the time and energy you could devote to tying up loose ends, finishing your emotional or spiritual business, saying good, and preparing yourself and your loved ones for the inevitable.
I find the pushing of these treatments often coercive, manipulative, even sometimes dishonest.
And I would say abusive, in the case of moribund children (one who's mother is always asking for donations online comes to mind).
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.
