Speaking of hornets' nests . . .

My mother died from oral cancer. We were told there was a 90 percent cure rate and she did the chemo and the radiation. I guess she was in the 10 percent that didn't make it. I saw how sick, nauseous and weak she got from the treatments. She couldn't eat and she just got so tired and run down. I wondered what was worse--the illness or the cure. Her last months were a misery with all the treatments.
 
Phyllis - I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your mother. I think the one thing this thread has brought out is that there are many different ways to treat cancer and people should be able to make their own choices - whether that includes conventional, experimental, alternative, or a combination of all of the above. Thank you for sharing your mother's experience with us.

Carrie
 
pixiesis said:
Morningstar, would you consider dropping the attitude toward Carola?

Amy
Click to expand...

Not quite sure why you call for this Amy. Carola's attitude towards morningstar more than matches that of morningstar toward Carola. Both have a defendable position, both are knowledgeable, both present their case vehemently, neither is entirely 100% correct and Carola actually prosletyzes more.

It is far from clear or accepted truth that chemotherapy is a "poison."

The best opinion was the one several pages back that sought to protect minors until they reach an age where they can make medical decisions for themselves and insisted that every case be tried and discussed on an individual basis as indeed the case of this boy was. Religion should never be allowed to interfere with medical care. Medicine belongs to a world of science and rationality, religion does not.

Clare
 
maddiesmum said:
The best opinion was the one several pages back that sought to protect minors until they reach an age where they can make medical decisions for themselves and insisted that every case be tried and discussed on an individual basis as indeed the case of this boy was. Religion should never be allowed to interfere with medical care. Medicine belongs to a world of science and rationality, religion does not.

Clare
Click to expand...

Clare - the "best opinion" according to who;)? Just like everything else, everyone has an opinion and others are not entitled to agree. I feel that personal beliefs SHOULD be considered, whether they be religious, cultural, or whatever! Personal beliefs cannot be totally discounted when an individual is seeking medical treatment.

Carrie
 
maddiesmum said:
Not quite sure why you call for this Amy. Carola's attitude towards morningstar more than matches that of morningstar toward Carola. Both have a defendable position, both are knowledgeable, both present their case vehemently, neither is entirely 100% correct and Carola actually prosletyzes more.
Click to expand...

It's not obvious? I call for this out of consideration for Carola who has recently gone through breast cancer. That's it.

Amy
 
carres1973 said:
But where to find a trusted librarian???

Carrie
Click to expand...

Hi Carrie - Every college or university I can think of has reference librarians on staff to direct students to research sources. Schools usually pay good money for access to research databases and periodicals that are not available freely on the web. Sometimes you gotta pay for the good stuff. ;)

If a school is a government documents repository, I believe they are also obligated to allow access to the general public.
 
Many public librarians have training in health related areas and can get your information. Medical librarians, obviously most often found in hospital libraries have in depth training and then of course there is also your colleges and universities. As Gayle mentioned, federal depository libraries are required to admit the public.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/libraries.html

Also, most private college libraries are more than accommodating the public even if they are not required to be. There are wealth of resources out there but the average researcher will need some help in identifying them and properly searching them. :)
 
My breast cancer was treated with traditional chemo/surgery/radiation.

I did not do nearly the amount of research that Carola has. Quite frankly, I wasn't interested in hunting around while the tumor was growing in my body. That may sound irresponsible and somewhat 'sheep-like', but there you go.

I am comfortable with the choices I made. I would make the same choices again. And nope, I wouldn't do any more research than I did the first time.

There is no 'cure' for any cancers. NO treatment can guarantee the cancer won't recur (recurr?) somewhere down the line. If you never have a recurrence, for all intents and purposes, you have been 'cured', no matter what treatment you underwent. If cancer recurs, it just means you've been unlucky again, not that your original treatment didn't work. I've always understood my cancer treatment to mean that the cancer I had this time could be eliminated. I always understood there were no guarantees for the future. And that's OK with me.

It seems to me like this - we know how to fix broken bones, but that doesn't guarantee you won't ever break that same bone again, right? You can get a cold over and over again - it's never the same cold. The cancer a person gets the second time is not the same cancer that occured the first time. Each cancer is unique unto itself.

My oncologist advocates for traditional medical treaments for cancer, of course, but enourages her patients to also use alternative therapies to supplement their traditional therapies.

She and I had a long discussion about how many chemotherapies are derived from 'natural remedies'. I forget which chemo it was, but one of the medicines I was given - I think it was Taxotere, is dervived from a salve Native Americans in the Northwest made from yew trees. (I think I'm remembering the right tree.) Anyway, the indigenous people of the Northwest used this salve to treat swelling of the breasts. Now it has been developed to treat cancer. Of course, one cannot go and chop down all the yew trees to make the medicine, so a synthetic version was developed in the lab.

So I don't see why natural and traditional approaches have to be exclusive unto themselves and why there has to be so much fuss about who's right and who's wrong and that traditional treatments and Big Pharma only care about making money and screw the patients and cure rates and that alternative treatments care more about the patients.

I have no research, I have no statistics.


As for that 13-year old kid - he can do whatever he wants. He's not hurting me, he's not hurting anybody. It's his body, it's his choice. Let him do whatever the hell he wants. It's not my business.


Oh, crap, now I've brought choice into the discussion.....

Hee.
 
eminenz2 said:
I did not do nearly the amount of research that Carola has. Quite frankly, I wasn't interested in hunting around while the tumor was growing in my body. That may sound irresponsible and somewhat 'sheep-like', but there you go.

I am comfortable with the choices I made. I would make the same choices again. And nope, I wouldn't do any more research than I did the first time.


Oh, crap, now I've brought choice into the discussion.....
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you but choice has been part of this discussion all along. You just chose to follow the advise of your doctors and not ask questions or take the reins with your care. Frankly, based in my experiences with the healthcare system I want to be informed and ask questions. Everyone has to do what is appropriate in their circumstances. I'm just glad to know you are well.

Since we are on the topic, here is an interesting article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/health/policy/24cancer.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
 
Beavs said:
You just chose to follow the advise of your doctors and not ask questions or take the reins with your care.
Click to expand...

Although I know you didn't mean it, this statement really hit me in the gut and just hurt. And hurt. After everything I've been through, you can't even know how much....Like I was so passive and mindless - which is not how it was.

I did 'take the reins' of my healthcare. I ate well, I exercised, I didn't smoke. I did all the 'right things'.

What I understand now is that we have much less control over things than we think, and to insist otherwise is delusional.

Cancer is not preventable, there are no cures for cancer, and there will never be a 'cure' for cancer. You just do the best you can and hope you get lucky. Some people die in horrific car crashes, some people sustain devastating injuries while serving their country. Some people die of cancer.

As the cliche goes, 'No one gets out alive..."

;)
 
"We have much less control over things than we think"...I just wanted to say that is so true and a lesson I learned also. Something just comes out of nowhere and really wacks you one. I had a brain hemorrhage a few years ago--no risk factors, no reason anyone could come up with. It just happens. That is a big lesson in life when you realize you have been delusional to a point. Like you said 'no one gets out of here alive".
 
I'm speaking merely in terms of what you chose to do information wise once you find out you have an illness. If I understand correctly, you chose not to an extensive amount of research but to follow the advice of your doctors. Carola chose a different path hence my comment about choice. Does it mean you get what you deserve if you don't "take the reins" as I stated? No. Quite frankly, I could relate to someone being completely overwhelmed (this may not have been your situation at all). So please know that I am not passing judgment on how you handled your illness. I can't sa how I would react if I were in your situation.

I just know from what I went through with both my mother hospital stays (and my niece who lost her battle with Ewing's sarcoma a year ago in April) that if I couldn't ask the questions myself I'd want an advocate with Carola's feisty spirit and information seeking skills looking out for me. And yes, I realize that we can do all the right things in life and still end up unlucky. My niece was barely 17 when she passed. She and the other young children battling cancer in that pediatric ward didn't have a chance to mess up their lives.
 
Last edited:
You know Beavs, the more I reflected about 'taking the reins' the more I reallized in order to control things, you have to give up control.

For example, in a very literal sense, I've ridden horses that have become very frightened and the more I've tried to literally 'take the reins' the worse the situation got. It was only when I learned how to relax and trusted myself to ride it through did I reallize I could do more than I originally thought.

I see how this can work as a metaphor for how to live one's life. I may not be able to control the horse but I can control my reaction to the horse. By doing so, I therefore am able to 'ride out' whatever the horse throws my way.

I may not be able to control cancer, but I can control my reaction to it.

But my original point was this - I think there are many legitimate options for dealing with cancer. I don't think any one treatment is better than the next. Many cancers are untreatable because they are so difficult to detect in the early stages and once they are found, it's too late. However, like having a cold or hayfever, once you are over one cold or make it through one allergy season, that doesn't mean you won't ever get colds again, or have a bad time next year when the pollen comes a-callin'.

Does that make sense?

So to me, the whole who's-right-who's-more-right thing between traditional v.s alternative treatments in pretty much pointless.

I am very sorry for your losses. I have a third grade student with ALL - Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. She's just eight years old! She will get well one day, but traditional treatment lasts any where from one and a half years to three years. Poor baby!

Carola is my hero! Anyone who lives to tell the tale is my hero! And to be unfortunately inappropriate and awash in cliches, anyone who dies fighting the good fight is also my hero.

PhyllisG, isn't the 'loss of innocence' craptastic, too? It was very hard for me to trust my body. I mean, it already hijacked me once. What's to stop it from doing it again?
 
eminenz2 said:
You know Beavs, the more I reflected about 'taking the reins' the more I reallized in order to control things, you have to give up control.

For example, in a very literal sense, I've ridden horses that have become very frightened and the more I've tried to literally 'take the reins' the worse the situation got. It was only when I learned how to relax and trusted myself to ride it through did I reallize I could do more than I originally thought.

I see how this can work as a metaphor for how to live one's life. I may not be able to control the horse but I can control my reaction to the horse. By doing so, I therefore am able to 'ride out' whatever the horse throws my way.

I may not be able to control cancer, but I can control my reaction to it.

But my original point was this - I think there are many legitimate options for dealing with cancer. I don't think any one treatment is better than the next. Many cancers are untreatable because they are so difficult to detect in the early stages and once they are found, it's too late. However, like having a cold or hayfever, once you are over one cold or make it through one allergy season, that doesn't mean you won't ever get colds again, or have a bad time next year when the pollen comes a-callin'.

Does that make sense?

So to me, the whole who's-right-who's-more-right thing between traditional v.s alternative treatments in pretty much pointless.
Click to expand...

You and I have chosen different paths and I think I have said before that there are many different ways of dealing with a disease like cancer. There is not only ONE single path. But I resent that it is often portrayed in the media and by conventional medicine there is but one path and that many times people don't get the facts.

I still don't understand why there shouldn't be talk about alternative methods and why many who as much as consider alternatives get the scare tactic treatment. From my perspective, those who are interested will listen but not take everything I or anyone else says at face value but instead do their own research and those who think it is all a bunch of crook, unlike the court in MN, I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. I am merely stating them.

What works for one person may not work for the other person. If someone like me would be forced into chemotherapy I don't think I would make it. On the other hand, someone who believes in conventional therapy would resent every time he had to brew his/her tea of Chinese herbs. Of course nothing is always black and white and there are a lot of choices in between.

But that was the whole point of this discussion! Should the government be allowed to order a treatment that a teenager does not want? I don't think they should. Being on board with your treatments is a major part of the fight against this disease.

I do believe that there will be "cure" for many cancers but I believe that our research is barking up the wrong tree by focusing solely on and almost being obsessed with shrinking tumors. From a holistic view the tumor is a symptom for an underlying cause. It is a view that goes along with what I believe but of course there aren't any guarantees with anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top