I just read that one of my favorite musicians, Dan Fogelberg, died yesterday of advanced prostate cancer. Guys, get yourself checked as Mr. Fogelberg suggested. It's important.
posted by Helen at 6:46 AM
Monday, December 17, 2007
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Talk about Denial....
- Dating Toxins?
- What Happened to All the Nice Guys?
- Gifts for Boys
- The Way to Go
- Would You Want to Know How You Might Die?
- "I didn't think for a minute to run away."
- Why Are College Kids Mocking the Dead?
- A Little Socialism is Good for You, as Long as I g...
- Fur Children Revisted
17 Comments:
Going for another PSA test and a poke and prod session tomorrow. X rays for the chest, also.
With a prostrate the size of a tennis ball and other known problems, it's a good idea. Had a friend die of prostate cancer at 45. I would not wait until 50. Guys, make the appointments. It's curable if caught soon enough.
br549,
Younger men may need to be tested, especially if they have brothers or a father with prostate cancer or are African American as they have double the risk of white men:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/598_pros.html
In the UK ,believe it or not,16000 men died since last may8 of this
illness and yet we cannot have provenge,the medicine which helps terminal cases,the authorities are not continuing with ultrasound that has cured many men so basically surgery on the prostate
is all that is left.
Meanwhile the money that was being spent on research in prostate cancer now goes to,yes you've guessed it early diagnosis and preventative medicine for the ruling sex.
Mike, you beat me to it. Prostate cancer death rates are sky high in government run health care countries like England and France. People die on the waiting list.
7 of 10 Provinces in Canada send their men with prostate cancer to the US for treatment.
But our health care will be so much better once the government nationalizes it.
Right.
Trey
Mike Savell,
I read up on the lack of treatment in the UK for those with prostate cancer and found this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/16/ncancer116.xml
This is the problem with letting the government decide who gets treatement--as one of the commenters of the article above said, "doctors should make medical decisions, not politicians."
Absolutely.
Sure, tmink. That way, EVERYONE will die prematurely. Regardless of age, sex, color, or how much money you can afford to pay.
As a bonus, it will keep S.S. solvent for a longer amount of time.
Aggressive, early prostate cancer is awful. Some of these guys (like a 60-year-old acquaintance recently did) go to the doctor complaining of low back pain only find find it's spinal metastasis. From that point the odds are not good. (Frank Zappa, RIP.)
Prostate cancer killed my dad two years ago, although through a combination of aggressive treatment and a great attitude, he turned an original prognosis of 18 months survival into a nearly 13-year remission.
Annual PSA and digital exam for everybody 40 and up is not excessively cautious, IMO (I started at 36).
There's also some new research that suggests a possible link between even mild obesity and higher incidence of prostate cancer. Gotta watch the stuff like a hawk.
Dear lady, while your advice is good and well meant, there are cautions to be taken about the test, too. As a veteran of 3 prostate biopsies in less than a year, I've learned all about them.
First, biopsies are usually performed because of an elevated Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA). This is considered a fair symptom of developing trouble; about 20% of persons biopsied for this reason do indeed have incipient prostate cancer. However, in a great many cases, the biopsy reveals something else: Prostatic Intra-Epithelial Neoplasty, or PIN, which isn't cancer but worries the urologist enough to command a second biopsy in two months' time. The majority of persons whose biopsies reveal PIN don't have cancer, either.
Second, the biopsy isn't usually painful the first time, but it is on the second go-round...and of the third, suffice it to say that if I'm ever told I have to have a fourth one, I might just commit suicide and save my estate a few bucks. The prostate grows considerably more sensitive from being biopsied. There are also indications that it doesn't heal as fast from the second (or third) as from the first. That means blood loss for a more protracted interval, with all that can entail.
Third...this is the part the urologist will downplay with all his might...the biopsy is itself hazardous to your health, as it involves piercing the rectal wall and creating the possibility of septic infection. The countermeasure, a large dose of broad-spectrum antibiotics, doesn't always work; I was very sick for a long time after my third one. A urologist with a shaky "trigger finger" will increase the possibility of this outcome.
All that having been said, since prostate cancer and prostatitis are serious health risks to middle-aged and older men, it pays to be vigilant. Among other things, a swollen prostate, even if not cancerous, can result in sufficient bladder restriction to result in septic infections there. And then there's all that jumping up in the middle of the night to run to the bathroom, but that's a subject for another tirade.
Francis W. Porretto,
Yes, as with any medical test, there are precautions to take and the chance of false positives or other problems that warrant being cautious about giving exams to everyone. That's why it's best to talk with one's doctor about the risks and to make a decision that is right for you. Thanks for the input.
br549 wrote: "Sure, tmink. That way, EVERYONE will die prematurely."
I have begun to believe that socializing medical care is a way of allowing the elderly to die quicker. It is the end result of socialized medicine according to the data from countries that practice it.
Most of the money in health care is spent in the last 6 months of a persons life. I am beginning to believe that socialized medicine is a sneaky way of avoiding those expenses because people will die waiting for the expensive services.
Trey
br549, I think I had my sarcasm filter misadjusted. I am totally against socialized health care. I know what the govment does to hospitals, I did a internship with the VA.
Trey
No, tmink. I knew what you meant. I was being sarcastic in my response. But not toward you. I, along with you and millions of others, do not believe nationalized health care is the answer. At all. I honestly believe that people will die needlessly if it becomes the law of the land. And in a small way, that being the case, would actually leave S.S. solvent for a while longer than were there more people alive to collect it.
Please accept my apology for not being clear on the matter. I am terrible at explaining myself in type. Even when only trying to be funny.
Damn br549, you are too slick for me! I need to tune my sarcasm meter the other way!
I have come to believe that the millions of people dying earlier than they would under the current system is the point of the whole exercise. It would be enormously cost effective.
I think there are better ways to limit end of life care costs. One part is by supporting and promoting Hospice care and dying at home. Both my parents died at home surrounded by loving family. Both said that they had enough of the expensive treatments that made them so sick but kept them alive. God bless them both, having seen their example, I might nix a few more thousands of dollars of expensive but futile treatment when it is my time.
Trey
You know, there is no perfect solution. The company I work for is very small. Around 100 people. Three of us have cancer. Three more had insurance claims of over 50K. This was in calendar 07 alone.
Those who were hurt, the over 50K group, are recovered from their injuries and medical problems. Those of us with cancer are now pariahs. We are being given impossible tasks, treated poorly, you know the drill. I've been told I won't be fired, but I need to look for a new job. I can assume future pay raises are non existent.
The company's insurance rates have gone through the roof. My portion is insane. So I see the point. But a 55 year old lung cancer survivor doesn't stand much of a chance at finding gainful employment. No one in their right mind will insure me because of my health. Not too many companies are looking for new employees who are already 55. Even so, it is not someone else's responsibility to bear any expense for my condition. I agree whole heartedly. But I also have a problem with taxes I have to pay for others, at the same time.
So, one needs to die before he becomes old and otherwise a burden to society. I think that some see that everything needs to become socialized, where the masses count, and the individual is throw away. Until they are the one, and not part of the mass. I believe that is where we are going.
But for now, private health insurance beats the tar out of socialized health insurance.
Too many people watched "Soylent Green."
On Sunday (23rd) the ABC news show "This Week" did a memorial to him and I recognized his name because of this post.
情色視訊台灣kiss情色文學彩虹性愛巴士情色交友情色論壇聊天室ut情色網麗的情色小遊戲台灣情色網情色遊戲情色小遊戲情色小站情色影片情色貼片金瓶梅影片交流情色漫畫38ga免費a片情色文章情色圖貼天堂情色網情色網站情色自拍情色圖片
Post a Comment
<< Home