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'd alway support individual choice in health matters, regardless of whether or not I might agree with someone's choices. I think being informed about those choices and facing the reality of a person's own general health ( ie, comorbidities, mental status, general prognosis with/without treatment for a given diagnosis) makes for the best decisions. I'd have to say that as an oncologist, ol' Zeke is certainly informed about the process and available resources, but it's still an individual choice to be made, and I hope we never get to the point where such choices are made by the collective based purely on an arbitrary age.
While I posted at length about my own experience with colon cancer, choosing available treatment even though I'm 75, I can say unequivocally that in the event I had or developed Alzheimer's disease or dementia I'd NOT want treatment, would just hope to be kept comfortable and let nature take it's course.. As you mention, I'd consider continuing, aggressive and expensive treatment a waste of valuable resources just to prolong a life that, as far as I can see, is limited to a physical presence with little to no sentient or mental capability. I live in a community where the over 65 population makes up the majority, and from observation, think I see the same sentiments among many of our health care professionals- in fact I have had this conversation with my PCP, who sees it as I do.
I just wanted to mention something else, as it was mentioned in the video in the OP. Apparently Emmanuel had included pacemakers as a medical intervention he would personally forego once he hit 75. I recall listening to an interview with Obama where limiting medical interventional care to seniors in general was mentioned as they were touting the glories of Obamacare. IIRC he mentioned age 70 as a limit, and pacemakers were listed among the medical procedures mentioned. Though like the interview in the OP, these age limits were just discussed theoretically, not as a matter of policy, but it pointed out the mindset, IMO, of these decision makers.
The theoretical pacemaker age limitation hit home to me ( like the cancer did) as I have a pacemaker, which was implanted a couple months before my 72nd birthday. It was implanted to treat sinus node dysfunction, which for me took the form of bradycardia ( heart rates that would get into the 30's-40's routinely), alternating with tachycardia ( heart rate into the 170's 180's- just anytime). I went through this for something over 2 years before the pacemaker, and though I dragged myself through the activities of daily life, my quality of life was circling the drain as time went on as I fought near syncope on a number of occasions and actually did pass out maybe twice. Whether or not I'd have died is a matter of question, as I read sinus node dysfunction generally drags on for years unless the person passes out while driving, or throws a clot, causing a stroke, and who knows how many others they may take with them in these possible scenarios.
But the pacemaker was, and has been a game changer for me, as it ( with the proper settings ) gave me back the energy, and allowed me to take enough medication to control the tachycardia, all of which has let me resume my life contributing the best I know how as a senior member of this community. I'm grateful every day for having gotten it at age 71. The possible alternatives under age-restricted denials of medical care would have been grim.
I don't even consider a pacemaker to be an extreme medical intervention. Obama is 61 now. I wonder if he still considers 70 to be so ancient.
I'm glad that your pacemaker has given you such positive results. I would make the same decision in your shoes.
I don't think it's fair to brand health care workers as being people who promote treatment because "there's too much money to be made". I happen to believe most medical professionals are in the business of saving lives and they do what they can to save patients.
Does an oncologist get kick backs from the drug manufacturers?
But for me if there is still a decent chance to hold on to life I'm going to fire all my bullets. If it becomes clear that I am only delaying the inevitable well then I would stop. But at least I have a choice, if you refuse treatment you don't get a do-over later.
Whether I fire "all my bullets" or just some depends on the likelihood that the "other side" of the treatments is worthwhile. If I get a "good" six months, sure. If I'm getting a six-months of constant treatments and weakness, not so much.
I'd alway support individual choice in health matters, regardless of whether or not I might agree with someone's choices. I think being informed about those choices and facing the reality of a person's own general health ( ie, comorbidities, mental status, general prognosis with/without treatment for a given diagnosis) makes for the best decisions. I'd have to say that as an oncologist, ol' Zeke is certainly informed about the process and available resources, but it's still an individual choice to be made, and I hope we never get to the point where such choices are made by the collective based purely on an arbitrary age.
While I posted at length about my own experience with colon cancer, choosing available treatment even though I'm 75, I can say unequivocally that in the event I had or developed Alzheimer's disease or dementia I'd NOT want treatment, would just hope to be kept comfortable and let nature take it's course.. As you mention, I'd consider continuing, aggressive and expensive treatment a waste of valuable resources just to prolong a life that, as far as I can see, is limited to a physical presence with little to no sentient or mental capability. I live in a community where the over 65 population makes up the majority, and from observation, think I see the same sentiments among many of our health care professionals- in fact I have had this conversation with my PCP, who sees it as I do.
I just wanted to mention something else, as it was mentioned in the video in the OP. Apparently Emmanuel had included pacemakers as a medical intervention he would personally forego once he hit 75. I recall listening to an interview with Obama where limiting medical interventional care to seniors in general was mentioned as they were touting the glories of Obamacare. IIRC he mentioned age 70 as a limit, and pacemakers were listed among the medical procedures mentioned. Though like the interview in the OP, these age limits were just discussed theoretically, not as a matter of policy, but it pointed out the mindset, IMO, of these decision makers.
The theoretical pacemaker age limitation hit home to me ( like the cancer did) as I have a pacemaker, which was implanted a couple months before my 72nd birthday. It was implanted to treat sinus node dysfunction, which for me took the form of bradycardia ( heart rates that would get into the 30's-40's routinely), alternating with tachycardia ( heart rate into the 170's 180's- just anytime). I went through this for something over 2 years before the pacemaker, and though I dragged myself through the activities of daily life, my quality of life was circling the drain as time went on as I fought near syncope on a number of occasions and actually did pass out maybe twice. Whether or not I'd have died is a matter of question, as I read sinus node dysfunction generally drags on for years unless the person passes out while driving, or throws a clot, causing a stroke, and who knows how many others they may take with them in these possible scenarios.
But the pacemaker was, and has been a game changer for me, as it ( with the proper settings ) gave me back the energy, and allowed me to take enough medication to control the tachycardia, all of which has let me resume my life contributing the best I know how as a senior member of this community. I'm grateful every day for having gotten it at age 71. The possible alternatives under age-restricted denials of medical care would have been grim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pathrunner
That's really great Travelassie!
Yes, my father's wife who passed away at age 90 (10 years ago) had heart surgery at age 75 to correct a birth defect - something about a valve, I believe. I don't know why it wasn't done until then. It gave her a completely new lease on life with the ability to be very active. This person ran circles around me at times. She had so much energy that it amazed me, and I have a lot.
I heartily agree with both posts. Is perhaps the medical industry too willing to promote "best case" scenarios, even if unlikely? They may be unaware since they only see the patients in between several rounds of treatments and my really have very little idea of what day-to-day life is really like. This is especially true if they did not know the patient when he or she was healthy.
Thus, the doctor may only subjectively know what the patient wants to be restored to.
I don't think it's fair to brand health care workers as being people who promote treatment because "there's too much money to be made". I happen to believe most medical professionals are in the business of saving lives and they do what they can to save patients.
Does an oncologist get kick backs from the drug manufacturers?
It's the way they make a living and keep a roof over their head. That isn't to say that the healthcare workers are promoting treatments out of sheer greed but they also aren't working in healthcare for completely altruistic reasons, either. They need a paycheck just like everyone else does.
Medical professionals tend to view procedures/treatments/surgeries, etc in a fairly narrow, specialized way. For instance, chemo might be the best way to cure or at least treat a specific kind of cancer. But sometimes the treatment/cure can be worse than the disease and it can negatively impact other parts of the body (fertility, mental health, heart, kidneys, etc).
Mammograms "save lives" but they also create a lot of angst and despair with false positives, unnecessary procedures, over treatments, exposure to radiation over the course of decades, etc.
I can see how an older person might opt out of screenings and certain aggressive treatments. The chances of a 75 year old woman dying from a calcification in her breast is pretty small, so why go through a biopsy for it?
It's the way they make a living and keep a roof over their head. That isn't to say that the healthcare workers are promoting treatments out of sheer greed but they also aren't working in healthcare for completely altruistic reasons, either. They need a paycheck just like everyone else does.
Medical professionals tend to view procedures/treatments/surgeries, etc in a fairly narrow, specialized way. For instance, chemo might be the best way to cure or at least treat a specific kind of cancer. But sometimes the treatment/cure can be worse than the disease and it can negatively impact other parts of the body (fertility, mental health, heart, kidneys, etc).
Mammograms "save lives" but they also create a lot of angst and despair with false positives, unnecessary procedures, over treatments, exposure to radiation over the course of decades, etc.
I can see how an older person might opt out of screenings and certain aggressive treatments. The chances of a 75 year old woman dying from a calcification in her breast is pretty small, so why go through a biopsy for it?
Even younger people than that if they've already been subjected to a lot of screening, procedures, surgeries, etc. and have not necessarily had the expected outcomes (good and bad).
Even younger people than that if they've already been subjected to a lot of screening, procedures, surgeries, etc. and have not necessarily had the expected outcomes (good and bad).
I agree. Some folks will draw the line earlier than other folks will when it comes to which tests/procedures/screenings/surgeries/treatments that they will submit to.
I was looking at a beautiful continuing care community website which had a variety of housing options (apartment, town home, cottage, larger single family home), as well as, restaurants and shops for the residents in the community. You basically buy into the community and you will receive the level of care you need as you age. Then I noticed that the community was non smoking (not an issue for me) and also that the restaurants did not serve alcohol. You could go to a sports "bar" to watch a football game, for instance, but not be able to buy a beer. You could go to a restaurant but not have a glass of wine with your dinner. No thanks. Personal choice is underrated.
I am considering it. Something to consider is that chemo and radiation may KILL YOU. It is well known that some cancer deaths are caused by the treatment.
Right now they have immunotherapy but, they require you to get chemo and radiation first.. one problem... that destroys the immune system.
I've been on chemotherapy for 4 years now (in the form of pills, 21 days out of every month) and estrogen blockers, to treat my incurable metastatic breast cancer. So far the tumors are under control, have shrunk, haven't spread. I am told that I might "reasonably" expect another 5 years. I personally plan to fight for more. Yes, my immune system has suffered, I have to be more careful in terms of Covid, and sometimes I get an extra week break from the chemo; but no one's said that my immune system is "destroyed".
Do I want to stop the treatment? Heck, no. I am in no pain; I am pretty much living my life, except for certain things I have to be avoid in terms of Covid risk, and I get more bloodwork and CT-scans and bone scans than I ever thought I'd have to have, but that's a small trade for continued breathing.
I think every cancer case is different, not to mention the cancer patients and what they can and will endure. I hope that treatment will always be mainly the patient's choice.
I agree. Some folks will draw the line earlier than other folks will when it comes to which tests/procedures/screenings/surgeries/treatments that they will submit to.
I was looking at a beautiful continuing care community website which had a variety of housing options (apartment, town home, cottage, larger single family home), as well as, restaurants and shops for the residents in the community. You basically buy into the community and you will receive the level of care you need as you age. Then I noticed that the community was non smoking (not an issue for me) and also that the restaurants did not serve alcohol. You could go to a sports "bar" to watch a football game, for instance, but not be able to buy a beer. You could go to a restaurant but not have a glass of wine with your dinner. No thanks. Personal choice is underrated.
I was researching a couple of those around where I live. But, the monthly fee rises dramatically if you actually need nursing care. I'm sure I'd be floored if I looked at the pricing structure now as it's been probably ten years since I looked into it. It's an interesting concept though.
I was researching a couple of those around where I live. But, the monthly fee rises dramatically if you actually need nursing care. I'm sure I'd be floored if I looked at the pricing structure now as it's been probably ten years since I looked into it. It's an interesting concept though.
You practically need to have a law degree and a finance degree to understand all of the terms of those places. The one thing that I would absolutely not want is to pay a not so small fortune to buy into one of those places only to have the staff nagging me about or forbidding me to have a glass of wine or a piece of cake for dessert - or whatever, in their mind, is the "wrong" thing for me to be drinking or eating.
Forget that.
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.
