not close enough to get the job done." It would entirely depend on what type and stage of cancer it was, for me. With my mum it was stage 4 when it was found and was inoperable to start with, but they thought that chemo might shrink it enough to get it operable. It did, but by the time that happened her body was in such a state she wouldn't have survived the operation anyway. She took every option available to her, which most likely gave her an extra 6 months, but looking back i'm not sure the added suffering was worth it. However, not doing that would have meant giving up hope, and none of us were ready for that as it was a total bolt out of the blue, so none of the family had had any time to adjust. Without the chemo she would have likely been gone within 3 months from first diagnosis, with it she lasted 9 months. If silly hippy woman had the chemo she could still be perfectly fine and go into remission. And if she'd had chemo last year like she should have this wouldn't have happened. But I completely take your point - someone we know with a massive, defeinitely fatal brain tumour underwent a lot of treatment to extend her life, and it just made her quality of life in her last few months ultimately non-existent. Oh, it wasn't an argument against the hippy, in this case she is literally