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.
We all know that chemo/radiation likely hastens the end. I wonder---if one knew they were going to die with or without the treatment and was too cowardly to use more conventional methods, would chemo be an acceptable way to do oneself in---the idea being that since terminal cancer is a slow, painful way to die better to use chemo/radiation as a way to speed up the process and "get it over with"?
I get what you are saying; however, it seems NO treatment would be more effective than chemotherapy.
Not sure if chemo would actually speed up death....but it surely would increase the suffering.
When someone is suffering from their cancer, it usually means it's terminal and then they can go on morphine.....so they wouldn't have to do chemo at all. Just drug yourself and try to stay out of pain until the end.
We all know that chemo/radiation likely hastens the end. I wonder---if one knew they were going to die with or without the treatment and was too cowardly to use more conventional methods, would chemo be an acceptable way to do oneself in---the idea being that since terminal cancer is a slow, painful way to die better to use chemo/radiation as a way to speed up the process and "get it over with"?
Um, it does exactly the opposite. Not sure how you came to your original premise.
Um, it does exactly the opposite. Not sure how you came to your original premise.
I've had a few relatives who were diagnosed with prostate cancer, underwent chemo/radiation, and ended up dying anyway, but according to the immediately family the consensus was that one of them. my uncle, would have lived longer had he just foregone the treatment and allowed the cancer to take its course. Another way to say the treatment hastened his demise. So if the "cure" is going to be deadlier than the disease itself, and one knows this and knows there's little or no hope anyway, why not undergo the treatment as a crapshoot: long odds, you beat it; likelier outcome, you succumb earlier and shorten the dying process. Morphine kills the pain in either scenario.
We all know that chemo/radiation likely hastens the end. I wonder---if one knew they were going to die with or without the treatment and was too cowardly to use more conventional methods, would chemo be an acceptable way to do oneself in---the idea being that since terminal cancer is a slow, painful way to die better to use chemo/radiation as a way to speed up the process and "get it over with"?
I can't imagine a cowardly person choosing that way to die. I mean it's INSANE you are barfing your guts out, too weak to walk or enjoy life, slowly waste away to nothing and then die. My gosh, I would think that *anything* (including cancer, by the way) would be better. I have known people who had breast cancer and had a pretty good quality of life for many years whereas, most people who die from chemo die within a few months.
If you are that intent on killing yourself, I'd think there are much better ways to do it.
In Oregon where Patient Assisted Death (as it is now called) is legal... Seconal is used... 100 pills, empty the powder into yogurt or applesauce (not liquid as it could aspirate) and you go to sleep and off to heaven. That's Patient Assisted Death. Yours would just be done at your own will. Who are they going to prosecute... .YOU? The trick is to know where to score the drug that will do it. You also have to take an anti-nausea one hour before, to prevent possible regurgitation of the yogurt or applesauce. You get sleepy in 5 mins. go to sleep and within 25-60 minutes you're gone. Everyone who is fatally ill, suffering, in horrible pain should have the right to determine the time and manner of their own passing. I have lived through it with a relative. Everyone should pass so easily, painlessly, quickly and peacefully.
I can't imagine a cowardly person choosing that way to die. I mean it's INSANE you are barfing your guts out, too weak to walk or enjoy life, slowly waste away to nothing and then die. My gosh, I would think that *anything* (including cancer, by the way) would be better. I have known people who had breast cancer and had a pretty good quality of life for many years whereas, most people who die from chemo die within a few months.
If you are that intent on killing yourself, I'd think there are much better ways to do it.
20yrsinBranson
My wife took chemo and really didn't have much nausea. The newer drugs and also they've done a better job with dosage has helped a lot.
Once her blood counts got too bad and they had to start skipping chemo treatments it spread faster and she died.
At least the "coward" got a couple more years with her gradeschool aged children.
She made it about 4 years or so from initial diagnosis but by then it had already spread. Neighbor across the street is a 20 year survivor.
I've had a few relatives who were diagnosed with prostate cancer, underwent chemo/radiation, and ended up dying anyway, but according to the immediately family the consensus was that one of them. my uncle, would have lived longer had he just foregone the treatment and allowed the cancer to take its course. Another way to say the treatment hastened his demise. So if the "cure" is going to be deadlier than the disease itself, and one knows this and knows there's little or no hope anyway, why not undergo the treatment as a crapshoot: long odds, you beat it; likelier outcome, you succumb earlier and shorten the dying process. Morphine kills the pain in either scenario.
Depends on the individual to make that choice. 85 or 30 with 2 young kids....whole spectrum of possibilities and some are worth a roll of the dice IMO.
Moderator cut: orphaned quote
Here is an example to show you how its done....
This would be the most recent stats on renal cell carcinoma from the NCI
"The overall 5-year relative survival for 1999-2006 from 17 SEER geographic areas was 68.8%. Five-year relative survival by race and sex was: 68.7% for white men; 69.6% for white women; 65.5% for black men; 67.4% for black women." Cancer of the Kidney and Renal Pelvis - SEER Stat Fact Sheets
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 07-18-2010 at 09:46 PM..
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.
