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.
Good for him though one has to wonder what his quality of life is/what the side effects are, especially at his age. Being alive is one thing. Quality of life is a far different thing.
As for the drug being a new class of this/that and getting excited about this "new direction", maybe by medical or marketing/sales definition it's a new approach, but the drug I read he's on comes with a pile of "more common" side effects that don't sound pleasant/are more than minor in my view:
And to say he's cancer free is not true. No cancer MD would use such words. That's lawsuit territory. He's in remission. Big difference.
Better to experience such side effects if they are numerous vs dying? For myself, I know what my wishes would be, but that's a personal decision and Carter has made his, apparently going from it "is in the hands of God, whom I worship" into the hands of drugs/procedures.
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?
My father developed colon cancer at age 80. He decided from the beginning he would fight the disease. The first point I think that should be made is that trend today in oncology is towards targeted chemotherapy. Targeted chemotherapy is not just a bunch of chemicals that are dumped into your body in hopes that it will kill the cancer more quickly than you. Many of these targeted therapies are highly effective. They are most effective when cancer is diagnosed early and is no greater than Stage II. Although, some are effective against Stage III cancers. More importantly, some have very few side effects and relatively easily tolerated by many patients. Dad's treatment had little effect on him until the very end.
Ultimately though, the cancer got my father because it was too far along. The treatment did buy him over four years of life though and all but the last three months were very high quality periods. He took several lengthy trips during this period and was actually contemplating another trip at the very end of his life.
It was very educational experience. I think ultimately the vigor with which treatment is pursued depends on the patient. My father was no quitter and Jimmy Carter isn't either. My father had a high pain threshold and I remember him hauling out the trash about ten days before he died. I think you really have to be facing death and the loss of your loved ones before you know what treatment you will opt for. Jimmy has a great life where he is surrounded by friends, family, and admirers.
What I will say is that I think the country needs to be able to discuss things like what amount of money we are willing to pay for people in their 80's and 90's to have aggressive chemotherapy treatment. Its very expensive and you really have to decide how much is an additional year of life worth. The questions are simply that direct and blunt. Money is not an infinite resource.
Good for him though one has to wonder what his quality of life is/what the side effects are, especially at his age. Being alive is one thing. Quality of life is a far different thing.
As for the drug being a new class of this/that and getting excited about this "new direction", maybe by medical or marketing/sales definition it's a new approach, but the drug I read he's on comes with a pile of "more common" side effects that don't sound pleasant/are more than minor in my view:
And to say he's cancer free is not true. No cancer MD would use such words. That's lawsuit territory. He's in remission. Big difference.
Better to experience such side effects if they are numerous vs dying? For myself, I know what my wishes would be, but that's a personal decision and Carter has made his, apparently going from it "is in the hands of God, whom I worship" into the hands of drugs/procedures.
The best to anyone going through such a thing.
He feels well enough to go to church.
Drugs.com will list every condition or side effect reported by anyone who has taken a drug.
"For Carter, the effects were slight: he had a slight reaction to the infusion, some pain in his shoulder, and he slept really well the night after his infusion ..."
Good for him though one has to wonder what his quality of life is/what the side effects are, especially at his age. Being alive is one thing. Quality of life is a far different thing.
No, one really doesn't have to wonder. It's not like he isn't periodically in the public eye.
Quote:
Sep 14, 2015
Even in the face of cancer, former President Jimmy Carter is keeping a busy schedule teaching Sunday school at his small hometown church -- and seeing a surge in attendance for the sessions he's led for years.
Nov 5, 2015
Jimmy Carter resumed his role as Habitat for Humanity's most prominent booster on Monday, donning a white hard hat and a worn leather belt stocked with his own tools to hammer and saw with other volunteers building a home in Memphis, Tennessee.
It sounds like he has quality of life as he defines it. Why this perpetual need to judge a decision made by a man, about himself (not about you) and pertaining to detailed medical information about himself to which he is privy (and to which you are not)?
I was just reading that altruism -- helping others, as Carter has continued to do throughout his retirement and, indeed, illness and course of treatment -- is as powerful a medicine as anything in the pharmaceutical industry... I'd put my money on that! Wishing him the best.
It sounds like he has quality of life as he defines it. Why this perpetual need to judge a decision made by a man, about himself (not about you) and pertaining to detailed medical information about himself to which he is privy (and to which you are not)?
For starters.....Carter made the decision to be a major public figure which opens one to judging on just about every aspect of their lives regardless if you, I, or he like it or not. He also decided to be public about his health condition and comment about the choices he made in regards to it to the mainstream media. So how can we not expect people to express opinions on it based on the information they read/hear about? If the views expressed here on CD or on various comments after articles on the topic are not to your or my liking, well, welcome to the reality of human nature, including yourself, of judging/forming opinions on others based on the data/information we have and what we would do or not do in a similiar situation based on this data.
As far as "detailed medical information", if one knows the type of cancer one has, the drug(s) one is on/procedures one had, and the age of the person, it's pretty easy for any layman to get a good idea on med sites what the vast majority of people can expect from such choices and the outcome.
For those who worry about cancer & would like to know all their options if they get it, I would recommend cancertutor.com/ a site not influenced by money. Best wishes, all!
For those who worry about cancer & would like to know all their options if they get it, I would recommend cancertutor.com/ a site not influenced by money. Best wishes, all!
Better yet....an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
"Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity. The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc. Therefore, cancer prevention requires smoking cessation, increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol, caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to sunlight, minimal meat consumption, use of whole grains, use of vaccinations, and regular check-ups. In this review, we present evidence that inflammation is the link between the agents/factors that cause cancer and the agents that prevent it. In addition, we provide evidence that cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes."
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.
