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.
I have a 90 year old great aunt with lung cancer who is not being treated. At that age, I feel like it's not necessary. But of course if someone wants it, then by all means. My boss is in her early 50s and has had cancer many many times. Many surgeries, permanent complications (brain tumor = blind in one lazy eye, seizures, slurred speech), chemo, radiation, and she swears the next time she's diagnosed (doc says when, not if), she's done. She's not treating it. This I also can understand. But who knows, maybe she will change her mind.
A child though - when parents choose to not treat their kids because of religion or whatever other BS reason, that's inexcusable. But it's important to keep in mind there's terminal kids who have no hope and only live in pain after a long unsuccessful fight, so you stop and let nature take its course, then there's initially finding out your kid has cancer and denying treatment. I do think that depending on one's age, an attempt should be made at the least. I can't imagine a young person, even an older one getting cancer for the first time, just throwing in the towel and allowing the disease to kill them. But of course, other than on behalf of young children, everyone can make their own decision IMO.
Chemo and radiation kills, too (and tortures first); everyone seems to gloss over that point.
Here it is, Thanksgiving, and you're serving up this shameful agenda of yours.
Virtually every medicine and treatment has side effects - some very severe. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are no different. The more dire the ailment, the more risky the treatments that will be considered.
You act like the concept of cost/benefits analysis is foreign to you.
We get it. You want victims of cancer (Jimmy Carter, in this case) to roll over and die. That's your agenda. And it's a disgusting agenda, since you're not Carter and he obviously values his life as he is choosing to live it more than you do, and he obvious understands the details of his illness better than any of us.
I can only imagine how disappointed you'll be if Carter, through the treatment regimen he has chosen, gains several more years of fruitful life. That would completely spoil your agenda and counter the nonsense your peddling.
Um, no... I'm just not 100% on the mindless-adherence-to-the-chemo/radiation-routine bandwagon...
Having been through this with my mother, in 2008 and again in 2012 with the recurrence, it is mindless. The doctors really don't let you make your own decision. It's a steamroller, and the oncologists laughing all the way to the bank while showing an oh so concerned and compassionate expression.
So you assume those who choose otherwise are on a "mindless adherence bandwagon".
Perhaps in Carter's case, it's as simple as his wife pleading with him to accept treatment.
His business, not yours.
Another well respected American ethic is respecting other's right to make choices regarding their own welfare without attaching any undeserved scorn.
Otterhere and others are not saying that people can't choose. He was exploring the reasoning behind such choices.
Also, there does appear to be a "mindless adherence bandwagon" derived from American ideology, but it confers no disrespect on individuals choosing treatment.
There is every reason to believe big pharma is a corrupt influence on human thinking, and that is where the disrespect belongs.
"Perhaps in Carter's case, it's as simple as his wife pleading with him to accept treatment."
In which case, that wouldn't really be his choice, would it? I mentioned the societal pressure to conform; he might also (altruistically) think he's obligated to set an example of "hope" to others. In either case, he's being coerced to some degree.
"At least we can let doctors know, and [the patient] know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the [treatment], but taking the painkiller.” - paraphrasing, but there do seem to be alternatives to treatment. First, do no harm.
Children and cognitively disabled are a different story but other wise, no medical treatment is mandatory with few exceptions such as being a danger to the community etc.
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.
