Call me an idealistic fool, but ever since Elizabeth Edwards revealed her cancer recurrance was now "incurable", I've been confused. How can ANY cancer be called "incurable" in this day and age, where clinical trials are available everywhere? Also, what does "treatable but incurable" really mean? Will she still evetually die of her disease?
I know of folks who were told they were TERMINAL, so since they had nothing to lose, they enrolled in trials that carried some risk, but also a chance at cure. And some WERE cured! Is Elizabeth even considering enrolling in a trial? It seems she too, has nothing to lose, if her cancer truly is considered incurable by "regular" doctors (i.e. those not researching trials).
ALSO, what about Lance Armstrong? His testicular cancer metastisized to his liver, lungs and even his brain!! That basically wrote him off as DEAD -- but look at how many years he's been cancer-free!
Now you see why Elizabeth's statement doesn't make sense to me. Your thoughts?
2007-08-23
09:51:47
·
9 answers
·
asked by
scary shari
5