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, let me say that I lost my mother to cancer. This November it will be thirty years, so I am not upset by the subject any more - enough time has passed. However, if you are going through the pain of a loved one who is fighting cancer or someone you recently lost, and are feeling sensitive about someone talking about money, this thread may not be for you.
Spoiler
I had a friend. In the same business as I, about to retire when I did (three years ago) at age 54. His wife was diagnosed and dead within two - three years and he was financially drained - to the point where he says he will have to put off retirement for another 8-10 years or more. In addition to doctors here in the US, they traveled the world looking for better news.
If expensive cancer care is worth the cost to you to keep your loved one, at any cost, for any amount of time, I certainly can understand that; but for all the money spent, how much time is bought on average? I am not looking for anecdotes; does anyone know of a study?
As others are saying here, it really depends on the type of cancer. Another critical factor would be the stage of the cancer when diagnosed.
Skin cancer may be 95% curable.
Lung cancer may have a cure rate of 20% or less.
Colon cancer may be curable 65% of the time.
Pancreatic cancer is a very brutal cancer that has a very high mortality rate.
Esophageal cancer may be curable less than 15% of the time.
Breast cancer may be curable 85% of the time.
It is also important to note that not all treatment is aimed at curing cancer. Some treatment is simply palliative in nature. In other words, it is aimed at making a patient more comfortable. Therefore, rejecting it even though it does not provide a cure may be a poor decision that may result in considerable pain and unpleasantness for someone in the last weeks or months or their life.
Its a complicated subject. Such decisions should be made only after conferring with physicians in an appropriate specialty and after having complete information.
Sorry to hear that and I hope you are planning some high living. I started this thread because I have amassed a couple $ and I plan on passing all of it to my sibs. It seems such a waste to me to give your life earnings over to a medical system just for a few xtra years.
I don't know where you live, but if you feel like raising a ruckus, feel free to drop me a line.
lol. I just now saw this. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, I live a lot of miles from you. I guess we can raise imaginary ruckii in our heads, which is probably far safer than many of the ruckii I've raised over the years. I've seen a lot and done a lot, and have no regerts. lolol.
I'm leaving all my worldly goods (pretty much non-existent) to a local outfit that rescues abandoned and abused fur people. And I strongly suspect when I'm reincarnated, I'll come back as a dog. I hope I come back as one of MY dogs, if you know what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7
Bottom line: It's all about the demand.
If there was no demand, there would be no product sold. As you yourself have demonstrated, all treatments are optional.
I disagree. People wouldn't demand things if those things weren't being shoved down their throats. And people are guilted into demanding treatment for their loved ones because it makes it look like they love them more. Haven't you noticed that most drug ads feature at least 2 people? one encouraging the suffering and one actually doing the suffering (with a goofy smile and glassy eyes). In reality, most treatment is condemning an already ill person to a miserable, prolonged death.
In reality, most treatment is condemning an already ill person to a miserable, prolonged death.
Futile treatment is to be avoided, but if most treatment was condemning an already ill person to a miserable, prolonged death, the treatment would not be used at all.
Many treatments initially thought to be promising never make it to the bedside.
The cancer I had 12 years ago had, at the time, had a 90 to 95% survival rate at ten years. Conventional treatment, well researched and proven time and again. Thirty year prior or 45 year ago my type of cancer had only a 10% survival rate. It took experimentation, trial, rinse and repeat.
Other cancers like pancreatic cancer have a low survival rate. Anything beyond the initial stages are frequently fatal.
You can't paint cancer with one brush and one color. It depends on the type of cancer, it depends on the stage of cancer and access to treatment.
The notion that "the cure is out there" and theses a conspiracy that "big pharma" is hiding the cure is utterly ridiculous. The amount of research and trials looking for letter treatments is always ongoing.
lol. I just now saw this. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, I live a lot of miles from you. I guess we can raise imaginary ruckii in our heads, which is probably far safer than many of the ruckii I've raised over the years. I've seen a lot and done a lot, and have no regerts. lolol.
I'm leaving all my worldly goods (pretty much non-existent) to a local outfit that rescues abandoned and abused fur people. And I strongly suspect when I'm reincarnated, I'll come back as a dog. I hope I come back as one of MY dogs, if you know what I mean.
I disagree. People wouldn't demand things if those things weren't being shoved down their throats. And people are guilted into demanding treatment for their loved ones because it makes it look like they love them more. Haven't you noticed that most drug ads feature at least 2 people? one encouraging the suffering and one actually doing the suffering (with a goofy smile and glassy eyes). In reality, most treatment is condemning an already ill person to a miserable, prolonged death.
Right, no-one would demand cancer therapies if it wasn't being "shoved down their throats." They'd just say - oh I've got cancer ok.
I've been recently diagnosed with cancer. I'm refusing all treatment. My doctor told me he's never, ever seen treatment work other than to prolong life for a very short time and make the patient miserable.
I'm sure some cancers are different and respond well to treatment.
Bottom line: It's all about the money.
Your Dr is wrong. There are over 200 different types of cancer. Some don't respond well to anything and others can be cured. My cousin NY was treated for leukemia back in the late 70s. He is still alive today. I was treated 7 yrs ago for adenocarcinoma (estrogen+) and and am still here. A neighbor we had was treated for breast cancer and it didn't come back for 21 years. Due to age and other health issues she chose to not be treated and died about a year later. It's not all about the money. It's about prolonging lives of those with cancer.
I disagree. People wouldn't demand things if those things weren't being shoved down their throats. And people are guilted into demanding treatment for their loved ones because it makes it look like they love them more. Haven't you noticed that most drug ads feature at least 2 people? one encouraging the suffering and one actually doing the suffering (with a goofy smile and glassy eyes). In reality, most treatment is condemning an already ill person to a miserable, prolonged death.
Nothing was shoved down my throat when I was diagnosed with cancer. The Onc' explained the different treatments available. He also made it clear some people chose to not get treatment or chose alternative type treatments such as herbs and supplements. He let me decide what I wanted to do.
If you are one of those who chose no treatment at all, that's OK too. They have wonderful pain killers these days I was told to help ease the person's pain as time passed and the end neared.
People wouldn't demand things if those things weren't being shoved down their throats. And people are guilted into demanding treatment for their loved ones because it makes it look like they love them more. Haven't you noticed that most drug ads feature at least 2 people? one encouraging the suffering and one actually doing the suffering (with a goofy smile and glassy eyes). In reality, most treatment is condemning an already ill person to a miserable, prolonged death.
An insulting, derogatory comment to anyone who's had cancer.
The question of cancer and how to relate to cancer is tricky. Best to think of how best to ease into death with the least difficulty. Chemo can sometimes help with the trip. Death with cancer is a bad trip and the cancer patient should utilize all avenues available if helpful. Forget about the life thing.
As others have said, it depends greatly on the cancer. Cancer is not one disease: it's hundreds. Even my uncommon cancer can be classified into 4 different subtypes plus 4 stages, with various permutations that result in a wide array of treatments and survival rates.
I can be expected to live another 50, 60, or more years despite my stage IV cancer diagnosis, even with long term side effects from chemo.
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.
