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.
That is the procedure that was used when my mom had her's removed. Uterine LMS is an aggressive cancer so there is no telling if using a different procedure would have made a difference or not. I imagine the cancer had already spread at that point, but who knows, maybe it hadn't, or maybe that procedure helped it to spread more quickly. I try not to dwell on what might have been as there is no changing the past.
I obviously have no right to advise you on your medical decisions, but if you were my wife, sister, or someone else I loved I would plead with you to get the fibroids removed. As you said, they aren't usually malignant, but I know from personal experience that they sometimes are.
Anyway, I'm not trying to hijack this thread. My personal view on the topic would be that the OP gets the tests done so that she can then make an informed decision on how to proceed. If she finds out she doesn't have cancer, great, she can move on with life. If she does have cancer she can go from there. It is always her choice not to pursue treatment if she feels that is the best route.
I do want to have the fibroids removed because they cause me problems. I have a large one that has gotten larger since it was checked last year, and I'd rather have it removed now before it gets any bigger. I am dealing with things like anemia and heavy periods, so that's enough reason for me to want them removed. There are always risks with surgery, but I've attempted to do my research and will discuss my concerns with my doctor before we move forward.
Because there is the possibility it is cancer, and the earlier it is caught the better chance you have of surviving.
Exactly. The doctor is being proactive. Also, this mass, even if not cancer, will cause you pain as it gets larger. Some benign growths on the liver, while not currently cancerous, could also develop into cancers. Most do not though. They can also rupture and bleed internally.
Not always. My mom had uterine fibroids. After letting them grow for a while and putting off the procedure to remove them they were removed through a non-invasive procedure. A while afterwards she received a phone call from her doctor. One of them turned out to be uterine leiomyosarcoma, an aggressive cancer. Just 18 months later she was dead at the age of 51.
I'm not saying this to scare anyone, only to advise people that things aren't always "nothing" and should always be investigated.
True, but it is rare.. By nothing, I meant that that doing something about them is not a big procedure. It is, as you said, non-invasive. As you also said, it is not something to put off. Early detection is the key. I am sorry about your mother.
What is so problematic about signing a document stating that it's your decision and you hold your doctor blameless in the outcome and will not sue? People sign "release from responsibility" documents every day. Surely to heavens a free, competent adult can't be forced or coerced to undergo medical treatments against his or her will (and the threat of termination IS coercion). I wonder what the law actually states about this. Any attorneys?
For instance, you're allowed to leave a hospital AMA ("against medical advice"), but you sign a form confirming it.
It's not so simple. Doctors and medical ethicists have varying opinions.
Here one version of the ethics:
If you are a doctor and the patient is refusing diagnostics and/or treatment, there you, the doctor, is failing to provide the best care, and thus it becomes an ethical issue.
I'm assuming that the patient is mentally sound. The ethics are different for the non-competent.
The doctor is failing to provide the best medical care if the patient is refusing care. No form signed by anyone can change that.
The doctor is obligated to find out why the patient is refusing care, but it is ultimately the patients decision. If the doctor feels the patient's health will suffer in any significant way from the problem between the patient and doctor, then that doctor is ethically bound to direct that patient to find someone that can help them. Sometimes it is just a personality clash, and changing doctors can solve that.
However, ethics does require that a doctor make a best effort to educate and work with the patient before dropping them.
Another version is that the doctor should never give up. They should just tough it out, try nagging more, and do the best they can with that patient even though they know the patient could receive better care than they're agreeing to. That one makes sense in small towns that may have only one doctor or specialist.
This presumes that "better care" is synonymous with MORE care, or at least more expensive and probably unnecessary poking and prodding. Not all of us agree. I don't think a patient should be "nagged" once he's made his intentions clear; that's harassment.
I just realized - you're talking about a very broad range of conditions - thyroid, cardiac, possible liver cancer. Do you mean that a single doctor is treating you for ALL of these? You're not seeing specialists for at least the liver stuff? They didn't refer to any specialists?
Seems like you'd be seeing multiple doctors so that ALL your care would not be cut off in that case...
Yes; you should see multiple doctors at the same time. Every week, if possible. And have frequent tests recommended by each one of them. Then, when you get the common "false positive," have retests. See how that goes?
This presumes that "better care" is synonymous with MORE care, or at least more expensive and probably unnecessary poking and prodding. Not all of us agree. I don't think a patient should be "nagged" once he's made his intentions clear; that's harassment.
There is a very simple solution. Don't HAVE your own "personal" physician. We may be required today to have health insurance, but nothing in that law says you actually must GO to a physician, including for all those tests.
If you choose not to comply all with these prevention tests, or treatments, why bother going to a doctor at all? To tell him No, No, NO? Waste of time.
If you do get very sick, go to an Urgent Care Center. Don't like what they tell you to do, never go back.
Actually, it would fit right in with the Hippocratic Oath they all (still, I presume) take: "First, DO no harm." They're not DOING anything if the patient refuses treatment, and cancer treatments -- while some may argue that they do good eventually in some cases -- certain can do harm in the process. However, they're very lucrative for MDs!
I don't understand what you mean.
You're saying doctors prescribing chemo is harmful?
OK then that's a good reason why people should chose doctors who share their own philosophy.
You don't want chemo or other treatments then what do you expect your doctor to do for you. (and they send you to an oncologist they don't do it themselves)
And generally speaking, physicians do not make a "lucrative" living sending people out labs for bloodwork, mammograms, bone density scans etc.
And certainly not when it's being paid by the government with caps on $$
There is a very simple solution. Don't HAVE your own "personal" physician. We may be required today to have health insurance, but nothing in that law says you actually must GO to a physician, including for all those tests.
If you choose not to comply all with these prevention tests, or treatments, why bother going to a doctor at all? To tell him No, No, NO? Waste of time.
If you do get very sick, go to an Urgent Care Center. Don't like what they tell you to do, never go back.
You need a regular physician to follow and treat the conditions which you elect to have followed and treated. Why must you be a mindless, unquestioning automaton in order to warrant the services of a personal physician? Wow!
And why should I have to interview physicians in order to find one with a "similar philosophy"? You realize you -- or insurance, or the government -- would pay for every one of those consultations, right? It's the patient's body and the patient's call.
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.
