Genre: Forum

Our house has had so many bugs since October, colds, vomitty and shitty bugs. The grand finale has been my boy getting Chicken Pox through nursery... which also meant us cancelling his Christening and party. Poor little bugger, he's not been that ill with it but he's scratching his back like a bear on the sofa arms and floor. Think he's over the worst of it now. You may recall stupid hippy friend of Mrs K's, who has bladder caaner. She had a small (almost said "wee" there but couldn't bring myself to pun that badly) tumour removed last year, but refused any treatment. She's instead been trying to cure it by drinking her own piss and aplying piss soaked bandages to herself. It's some hippy remedy she read about, or something. Unsurprisingly the cancer's back and has spread all over her bladder and tubes and things. It's not operable without removing her bladder entirely. So stupid hippy friend of Mrs K's is refusing chemo AGAIN. Reasoning this time is that chemo is that it's "only 60% effective and is bad for your body". Whereas cancer is like fucking Berrocha, clearly. The worst thing is she's a single mum and has a 7 year old daughter. Who's goign to be an orphan pretty bloody soon, at this rate. The internet has a lot to answer for. _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." This sort of thing just makes me really cross. It's like a religion with this woman - we had a blazing row the one year over homeopathy. I just ended up going "gnnnnnnk" a lot. _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just 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. 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. _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just 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 insane. More just a discussion on what I would and wouldn't do in the future My mum was holding on to see her 3rd granddaughter, she missed her being born by a day (although she was a week early I think, I have no doubt the stress of mum going kicked in labour for my sis!) A lot of people have a real misunderstanding about chemo, and think that it's 'one thing' that everyone has. Chemo regimes differ wildly, as do their impact on your general health and well-being. Some people undergo chemo and suffer not a great deal more than lowered energy levels, some end up with the chemo killing them before the cancer does. A good oncologist should really be able to explain what's going to happen to your quality of life whatever choice you make about treatment options. _________________ ApplePieOfDestiny wrote: If you want to play with the big boys, you've got to bring .... er .... big boy's toys. A lot of people have a real misunderstanding about chemo, and think that it's 'one thing' that everyone has. Chemo regimes differ wildly, as do their impact on your general health and well-being. Some people undergo chemo and suffer not a great deal more than lowered energy levels, some end up with the chemo killing them before the cancer does. A good oncologist should really be able to explain what's going to happen to your quality of life whatever choice you make about treatment options. You are right, chemo isn't a one size fits all solution. Part of the problem is that it isn't an exact science, they'll start light with a few drugs and see what happens, then adapt and increase if necessary. Plus with the added variables of different people reacting different ways to the mix of drugs, and difference cancers reacting in different ways, and it is all a bit of a crap shoot. The oncologist can give a rough idea, but it will only be rough. Also, they are predisposed to look on the bright side and give people hope, as in some ways that is more important for quality of life. Stage 1, 2 and 3 I would go for whatever treatment was offered. Stage 4 would be very dependant on survival rates and the type and location of the cancer, for me. One thing I would like is for a choice to go when I want and as painlessly as possible if I was in that situation, as the last few days of life for a cancer patient are utterly horrific for all concerned and I wouldn't wish them on my worst enemy, but legally that isn't an option. Awful to hear of anyone suffering from cancer, but to not take any treatment and with a young child to take into considereation that's unreal. I'd say she's doing the child a favour. I assume I'm missing a subtlety here. _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." One thing I would like is for a choice to go when I want and as painlessly as possible if I was in that situation, as the last few days of life for a cancer patient are utterly horrific for all concerned and I wouldn't wish them on my worst enemy, but legally that isn't an option. Awful to hear of anyone suffering from cancer, but to not take any treatment and with a young child to take into considereation that's unreal. I'd say she's doing the child a favour. I assume I'm missing a subtlety here. Because now the child won't grow up thinking that piss cures cancer, for instance? Weighed against "not having a mum" I think the balance isn't tipped the way you think it is. Unless you really think all people with hippies for parents would be better off as orphans? _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." I think you have a rather romantic notion of "mum". But yeah, the child is fucked either way, unless by some miracle it's adopted. This has nothing to do with hippies, it's about idiots that aren't fit to be parents. Why is she not fit to be a parent? She's a pretty good mum to the kid, and the kid is happy and well adjusted. Just because someone believes some baffling and stupid stuff doesn't make them unfit to be a parent. By that token Christians are all shit parents because they believe in zombie carpenters and sky pixies. _________________ The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done."