Leading US doctor says he won't get treatment if he gets cancer after 75 (hysterectomy, bladder)
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.
When doctors caught it, they said he had 6 months to live. He got chemo treatment but died in 9 months instead of 6.
So my brother had 7 months of failed chemo during which he was sick, nauseous, weak, eating sucked, food was lousy, chemo days took time and non-chemo days he was exhasted.
With chemo, he had 7 terrible months of life followed by 2 lousy months of hospice care.
Without chemo, he might have had 3 months of normal life eating what he wanted, a little bit more energetic, a little better quality of life, followed by 3 monts of hospice.
I will take the 3 months of normal life over the 9 months of hell any day.
Caveat: EASY TO SAY NOW while I am healthy and not looking death in the face. When the time comes, I may well be saying," JUICE ME UP, Doc! Let me have it!"
Good post, but one other factor to consider is the AGE of the person at the time of diagnosis of cancer along with the type of cancer. A person at age 39 could have MANY years of healthy, useful life to live if the cancer treatment were successful even though the treatment itself may be hell for several months.
For a person who is 80 years old when diagnosed, the calculations are considerably different.
Yeah, speaking as an active 77 year old, I don't really understand his broad brush approach.
Some cancers are fairly easily defeated, some are not. Pancreatic cancer?....... I'm pretty much toast. Melanoma?....... Treat it and see.
I was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer and will be 70 later this year. My father had it as well, but he developed it in his 80s and lived to be 99 without treatment.
Oncologist said if I was 5 years older, I could consider riding it out, but at my age I should get treated.
So far, I have had a CAT scan, 2 MRIs, various x-rays, blood draws, and a 14-sample biopsy. Friday, I had a Lupron injection to lower my testosterone level. In two months, I will start radiation treatment after receiving an injected gel "spacer" to protect adjacent tissue.
5 days a week for 9 weeks I will be radiated (similar to an X-ray), OR I can get radiated for 5 weeks then have brachytherapy where they insert radioactive seeds into my prostate. The worst part is that the cancer center is a two-hour round trip for a 10-minute treatment each day.
If I go with brachytherapy, I will have to fly to Honolulu for it. I've already been there twice for an MRI and a CAT scan. Two more trips upcoming.
My risk is moderate. If it was worse, I would require a prostatectomy, as two of my close friends have had to do.
Guess I'm the lucky one.
Then again, I had cancer insurance for 30 years, until last year when my provider went bankrupt. Shortly after, I developed cancer. I'm starting to wonder if I'm lucky after all.
Last edited by Futuremauian; 01-29-2023 at 11:41 PM..
Reason: Added a line
For those banging on about how USA should adopt some sort of universal health scheme similar to many European nations know this; often decision about treatment of mortal illness (such as cancer) will be made based upon statistical outcomes.
To wit if you're 70 or older the "state" may decide heroic measures to cure or treat said terminal illness are not reasonable use of resources (to put it nicely). Palliative or hospice care, yes that will be covered; but American way of performing endless rounds of various treatments until a patient or his/her family says *enough*, or dies like is off the table.
For those able to afford self insurance or otherwise have means to pay for private care, that's a different matter. Just look at all the well off or wealthy who fly to USA for healthcare from all over world.
This showed up in my feed this morning. I completely agree. I've been saying this for years. His main point is qualify of life. I'm not interested in prolonging my life, having been born with a genetic condition that is incurable and not well managed by current treatments. Now that I have other health issues related to aging, I'm even stronger in this viewpoint and decision.
I wouldn't either. Actually if I got cancer now I may opt to not treat it, except for the pain of course (or at least take drastic measures to treat it which may affect quality of life). Not interested much in living very much longer. I'm good with leaving this place about any time (do not have a family which depends on me to make that a selfish decision).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
For those banging on about how USA should adopt some sort of universal health scheme similar to many European nations know this; often decision about treatment of mortal illness (such as cancer) will be made based upon statistical outcomes.
To wit if you're 70 or older the "state" may decide heroic measures to cure or treat said terminal illness are not reasonable use of resources (to put it nicely). Palliative or hospice care, yes that will be covered; but American way of performing endless rounds of various treatments until a patient or his/her family says *enough*, or dies like is off the table.
For those able to afford self insurance or otherwise have means to pay for private care, that's a different matter. Just look at all the well off or wealthy who fly to USA for healthcare from all over world.
Well, a bit off-topic but it appears the advocates of universal health care schemes are somewhat naive; it could be they hear the words "less-expensive/free" and take that to an idyllic state which can never be achieved. My parents are like this and bemoan the current health care system where everyone doesn't have access to the relatively good health care we have here (and the motivation for their complaint is emotional: it just is not right. Well, that's life: not right). The problem is they believe states of utopia can exist where such a thing unfortunately isn't possible.
Sadly, the health care system we have here is one of the best kind there is. Again, it's an unfortunate fact because it is far from perfect, but as others who realize a utopic state just is not reality--there's a reason "the well-off or wealthy...fly to USA for healthcare from all over the world" (and again, it's far from a blanket statement; there's surely other places some go for exceptional healthcare, but the states is definitely one of them).
(And one more caveat since I've gotten this before--that by no means implies that we should just throw our hands up in the air and say, whatever it's never going to be perfect so who cares about trying to make improvements. What shouldn't happen however is advocating for something that has been clearly demonstrated to have huge flaws to a populace who typically does not understand these things and making the grounds for the advocation emotional and not factual).
Last edited by Basiliximab; 01-30-2023 at 03:27 AM..
The medical industrial complex along with big pharma really is something I personally do not wish to be a part of. I know people who take loads of drugs for things that could easily be fixed by self-discipline and diet. But this is about cancer. I feel the same way. I have seen way too many people suffer through chemo (which is basically the equivalent to throwing a turd at the wall and seeing what sticks) to ultimately die a worse death than what would have been if they just "peaced out" themselves. With that said, a very close relative of mine had late in life colon cancer which spread to liver that was successfully removed and treated with chemo. She never lost her hair and didn't get too sick. She is still alive and in her mid 80s.
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.
More like most, I'd say. And not just cancer deaths.
Rewards of obscene profits have driven obscene levels of intervention. And people just accept it without question.
More like most, I'd say. And not just cancer deaths.
Rewards of obscene profits have driven obscene levels of intervention. And people just accept it without question.
I agree. My mom had radiation and she went down fast. I have no doubt it killed her not the cancer.
True story, we told them to stop the treatment and I went down stairs to cafeteria. When I came back they were rolling her down for treatment. They "didn't get the message" - and happened to come for her at the exact time I was out of the room.
Later when I saw some of the bills for radiation... I understood why.
I wouldn't either. Actually if I got cancer now I may opt to not treat it, except for the pain of course (or at least take drastic measures to treat it which may affect quality of life). Not interested much in living very much longer. I'm good with leaving this place about any time (do not have a family which depends on me to make that a selfish decision).
Well, a bit off-topic but it appears the advocates of universal health care schemes are somewhat naive; it could be they hear the words "less-expensive/free" and take that to an idyllic state which can never be achieved. My parents are like this and bemoan the current health care system where everyone doesn't have access to the relatively good health care we have here (and the motivation for their complaint is emotional: it just is not right. Well, that's life: not right). The problem is they believe states of utopia can exist where such a thing unfortunately isn't possible.
Sadly, the health care system we have here is one of the best kind there is. Again, it's an unfortunate fact because it is far from perfect, but as others who realize a utopic state just is not reality--there's a reason "the well-off or wealthy...fly to USA for healthcare from all over the world" (and again, it's far from a blanket statement; there's surely other places some go for exceptional healthcare, but the states is definitely one of them).
(And one more caveat since I've gotten this before--that by no means implies that we should just throw our hands up in the air and say, whatever it's never going to be perfect so who cares about trying to make improvements. What shouldn't happen however is advocating for something that has been clearly demonstrated to have huge flaws to a populace who typically does not understand these things and making the grounds for the advocation emotional and not factual).
On average US spends more on healthcare for late stages of life than expectant mothers, newborns and children. That gives you an idea of priorities.
Sad thing is something everyone knows but few have balls to tackle; the huge sums extracted by healthcare providers via waste, fraud and abuse of private and government health insurance.
The choice to treat or not treat should ALWAYS be up to the patient. I wouldn’t want doctors to to be allowed to force treatment anymore than I’d want Insurance companies to decide on an age cutoff for treatment.
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.
