Sunday, August 24, 2008

have you even known someone with cancer who actually died of cancer and not the cancer treatment

have you even known someone with cancer who actually died of cancer and not the cancer treatment?
I've lost several people to cancer, but none of them died of the actualy disease. Mainly from side affects of treatments. Your experience?
Cancer - 14 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
My great grandmother died of colon cancer when she was 91. She refused treatment so it must have been the cancer that killed her.
2 :
I've lost several friends to cancer. All of them stopped treatment (other than pain killers) and died of the disease.
3 :
My mom died in 2006 three days before my birthday of colon cancer She was first diagnosed in 04 did six mos of chemo when they thought she was clear but re-diagnosed in nov 05 and tried a different course of chemo but stopped after three treatments because it had spread to her brain and lungs by then It was devastating to watch her suffer and it still affects me
4 :
My friend died he was 16
5 :
No. And most of the survivors I know that went the conventional route are going to have pain for the rest of their lives from peripheral neuropathy. Some of them suffered heart damage, and even brain dmage as well from the therapy. My 36 year old cousin is on Fentanyl, the pain is so bad. And she will never be able to practice nursing again. She's damned lucky to be able to take care of her hygeine in the toilets by herself, because of the nerve damage. And that's two years after completing cancer treatment. She also has heart damage, and is only now starting to recover her short term memory. EDIT: Apparently some folks don't realize that chemotherapy does indeed kill ALOT of people. In fact, all oncologists worth their salt know that conventional cancer treatments kill more people than they cure, in the end. Hospice does indeed give a last megadose to the relative of the patient to administer when their disease has been labeled terminal and hopeless by the doctor, and the pain and suffering has become absolutely unbearable. I have seen this myself with my aunt. (She had Lou Gehrigs' disease.) And the purpose of that megadose is to end the life of the patient, of course. But i'm pretty sure you weren't referring to what hospice does.
6 :
I understand your question. By the time the cancer progresses to an advanced stage, it has spread to all the major organs. When it hits the liver or the lungs or the immune system, it just keeps spreading and spreading. It is a horrendous disease. Then it just becomes so painful. The doctors start giving the patient morphine to ease the pain. The morphine ends up killing the patient. It's euthanasia. We shoot horses to put them out of their misery. Doctors give morphine to make the transition from life to death bearable. It's all legal and clean but it's really the same as what Dr. Kevorkian did. The transition from life to death is mysterious, Isn't it.
7 :
My uncle and grandfather had both stopped treatment and were only on pain killers when they died. Both from esophageal cancer.
8 :
My mom was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1985, given 5% odds of surviving as long as 5 years. She had the surgery, chemo, radiation, beat the odds and recovered. About ten years later, she had uterine cancer, and again did the surgery and radiation, and recovered. Twenty years after its first occurrence, the lung cancer reappeared. It had metastasized, so was inoperable. Chemo and radiation gave her a decent six months more, then she decided enough was enough, stopped treatment. So, yes she did die of the cancer itself, eventually, and after having had heroic bouts of treatment. My mom was one heckuva fighter, she died a year ago and I miss her!
9 :
My aunt and uncle both stopped treatment and were beyond the side effects when they died. My aunt will die of her cancer. I almost died a couple times but both times it was from the side effects (primarily the low white blood count and infection) The primary listed cause of death never is the cancer. It is always something like cardiac arrest, lung failure/suffocation/dry drowning, renal failure, infection or over dose no matter if it is the treatment or the cacner
10 :
It is untrue to say, as someone has, that treatment kills more people than it cures. Current conventional treatments are far from perfect, but we know - because they have been tested and proven in double-blind clinical trials - that they save many lives and extend many many more. I have lost several people to cancer; none of them have died from effects of the treatment. There is certainly a risk with chemotherapy of another cancer developing, but it is very rare. Through support groups and online support groups I have talked to several hundred people who have had chemotherapy and only one has developed another cancer that MAY be as a result of chemo. I myself am fit and well over four years after being diagnosed with stage 3 grade 3 cancer; I had surgery, chemo and radiotherapy. The story that treatment kills more than it cures is spread on this board by people who, without exception, have not had cancer themselves.
11 :
I'm lucky. The only person I know had cancer had it operated on, removed and is doing fine. She is only 9, though and I think most childhood cancers are successfully treated.
12 :
I understand you are angry. I don't blame you. Chemotherapy for many widespread, non-Lance Armstrong, malignancies is toxic, and for many types of advanced cancer it does not provide a cure. I spent 20 years fighting the many types of cancer as a medical oncologist/hematologist. Much of my time I spent trying to talk people out of taking chemotherapy which had never produced a cure for their specific disease type and could cause more harm than good. Many people refused to accept that simpler symptomatic and supportive treatment would be better. Not many people in the USA accept death as an option, even though death will be the result no matter what option they choose. Some oncology specialists grow tired of trying to explain this to people and simply recommend treatment knowing that people or their families will insist upon it and knowing that it will most likely fail. We need better treatments to be sure, but most patients do not die from the side effects of the treatment. They die from the ineffectiveness of the treatment. A patient with an unresponsive malignancy dies from the cancer AND is also weakened by chemotherapy treatments which are not working. The most difficult part is convincing people to stop taking therapy. They often become angry - or their family members become angry. They think the doctor is giving up. This will be the case until we have more effective and less toxic treatments and patients become willing to accept that there are diseases that doctors cannot cure. I've had family members of a 96 year old woman angry with me for recommending no chemotherapy for an advanced cancer that has never been curable by chemotherapy. It is often a no win situation - damned if you do and damned if you don't try treatment. That is one reason I retired early and moved on to teach college history. Anger is a recognized part of the grief process.
13 :
My uncle, a good friend and a co worker's daughter all died from cancer and not from the treatment. Sometimes medican intervention isn't enough to stop the cancer and sometimes the treatment is too toxic for the body to tolerate.
14 :
Here's my experience: My father was diagnosed in 2000 with metastatic prostate cancer. He received hormone therapy (lupron depot and casodex) for seven years. Unfortunately, in Sept. 2007 an MRI/Bone Scan revealed that he cancer had spread throughout his body. He oncologist said he could "try" chemotherapy. We did, just because you don't want to get to the very end and second guess yourself for not at least trying. After several sessions it was evident that the chemotherapy was not doing any good and he stopped. I would like to thank the good doctor for his answer. I think his answer was very accurate.



Read more discussions :
Posted by at