cancer does not kill people, the treatment for cancer kills people?

Question

cancer as described in the dictionary is a foriegn tumor which develops in/on the body. a cancer can be removed surgically or with medication. the reason for the removing a cancer is that it can be matastisize or become malignent and cause damage to other vital organs by blocking the organs ability to function properly. i may have dumbdown the current therories on cancer but this is how i understand the condition. but the decision to operate and remove a tumors even though there is no evidence of it being malignent or growing is a mystery to me. surgery is the first option in a woman with tumors in female organs and medication is the first option in a man. is a man's sexual organs more important then a woman's. hysterectomies and mastectomies out number prostratectomies done in this country. in other countries surgery is the last resort regardless of the sex of the patient. maybe that's why foreign doctors come to america for practice for these operations. i am mad need answer.

Answer 1

This is a revised reply; so pls disregard the bad rating. Cancer usually doesn't kill the patients. Most cancer patients die from other immediate or secondary causes with the cancer as an underlying or primary cause. A lot of chemotherapeutic drugs for cancer are cytotoxic.In oher words, normal cells are killed along with the cancer cells. And the pts do suffer a lot of side effects such as nausea and vomiting; hair loss; bleeding; anemia,CFS; the immune system is suppressed that the pts become susceptible to any infections; etc.
.

I'm well familiar with this dilemna. A lot of my family members died from cancer. My grandfather had Ca of the esophagus. My uncle had Ca of the kidney. My auntie had leukemia. My first husband had colon cancer. He went for chemotherapy and radiation therapy after surgery. But he died from severe anemia from the therapies.


My own mom died of Ca of the parotid gland. The cancer originated from a root left from a tooth extraction. Thereafter the salivary glands became cancerous. She must have swallowed the cancer cells which lodged in her right lung. After the lesion was excised from her lung, metastasis was rampant The surgery was done against the oncologist's recommendation. Upon biopsy, the cancer in the lung was of the same type as the cancer in the parotid gland.


The cancer spread to her stomach, liver, and brain making her so confused. Eventually, she died of acute pulmonary edema and cerebral encephalopathy as the Dr calls it. She went into renal failure first before she went into a left heart failure which was the pulmonary edema. And you know you can't survive with a failing kidney; nor failing lungs and eventually heart. .


Radical surgery is necessary to remove the cancerous organ esp if it's contained or isolated or localized as is in most prostrate cancer before the cancer spreads. However metastasis usually occurs with surgery. Chemotherapy should immediately follow post surgery to kill any possible cancer cells which might have escaped and gone into the lympathic system and attack other organs. Chemotherapy aside fom killing the killer or cancer cells, also kills the normal cells.


It's a Catch-22 with both modalities. So what do you do? I do strongly believe in surgery as the radical tx for cancer as well as being the definitive solution to eradicate other afflictions. The strongest objections I have is that doctors including the one below should be more honest and frank.


They should disclose the full ramifications of the disease to the cancer patient. This way, the pt can make an informed decision as to what action o decision to make. After all; that's his body, his life we are talking about.


When my husband was critically ill; the Dr. tried to do a number on me. His colon cancer started in New York. He had surgery but no chemo or radiation thereafter. Surgeon over there reassured us that he removed everything and there were no palpable lymph nodes. After moving to Ca; the cancer came back. Initially, the thought was that it was a different cancer. But the same old cancer came back ferociously. It attack the bile duct. It bypassed the stomach, So it must have travelled via the lymphatic system.


When subsequent surgery, chemo and radiation failed; I directed the primary Dr . to approach my husband and give him the real score of what he's up against. In other words; I didn't want the doctor to give him false hope. This is where the greatest pitfalls of doctors in general. They either give false hope or threaten the pt with "if you don't have the surgery; you will die." Sometimes, surgery only prolong the agony or buy the pt more time. By not disclosing the real truth; this adds to the stress that the pt is already going thru. Doctors shouldn't play God with the pt.'s life.



Yearly gynecological exams along with mammogram are definitely a must. Breast self-examination is imperative as mammograms are not too reliable. I've seen a lot of pts who discovered the lumps and cysts from their own self exam when their mammograms showed negative results.


My husband went for colonoscopy, barium enema, sigmodoscopy, GI series etc. And the adernocarcinoma wasn't visible . By the time they opened him up, the tumor was the size of a man's fist. The only symptom he had towards the end, was complete bowel obstruction. My husband was a healthy 155 lbs. He languished to a 84 lbs before he died. My two daughters were only 8 and 3; then. .


There is a blood test of CA-125 to detect ovarian cancer in women much like the PSA .test for men for prostrate cancer.I read an article excerpt from Gilda Radner's(SAt Night Live) book. She died of ovarian cancer when she didn't have anymore ovaries. Even though biopsy is a diagnostic procedure; it's still invasive and therefore considered surgery. The reason why I agreed on my husband's second surgery; it's because the surgeon reassured me that he would do a bileduct bypass. Even though, I knew it was a last ditch and futile effort. And it's like my husband was drowning in the pool and I refuse to throw him a life preserver.


Pts should be allowed to have some control over their lives. They should be considered as part of the decision making process. Other alternatives aside from surgery; should be discussed.


Treatment for cancer should be based on the type of cancer; the location and at what stage of cancer it iis in. Sometimes, surgery can open Pandora's box and kill the pt. thru quick metastasis. However, without surgery, the cancer might spread slowly anyway. There's a lot of homeopathic alternatives available now. But most are outlawed in this country. Chemotherapy with 5-FU and interferon show promises. Along with radiation therapy as detrimental as they both are; are still necessary evils.


Cancer is a terminal disease. It ravages the pt physically and mentally. It certainly prolong the pt's suffering. It's a slow and painful death. This is a treacherous and agonizing disease to die from. Early detection, diagnosis and immediate tx is of the essence for potential remission. To date, there's no cure. However, I strongly suggest, aside from surgery, chemo or radiation should commence immediately soon after. For breast cancer; lumpectomy could be done- a less debilitating approach. For uterine cancer, hysterectomy. For prostrate cancer; prostatectomy is indicated. And for colorectal cancer; a temporary colostomy with a duration of 1-2 yrs; to make sure all cancer cells are arrested or killed. A lot of pts survive cancer in these cases where follow-up chemo or radiation is done after surgery.

The advantages for surgery for cancer far outweighs the disastrous effects. We have a lot of choices in life to face. In the case of cancer, this is one of those inevitable crossroads. .

.


.

Answer 2

You should have rights as the patient. It is your body, not the doctors experiment. Usually the doctor will give you the options and let you know what is the most effective so cancer can be treated in a timely manner before it spreads. Of course, this is all after they run tests to determine if it is benign or not. If the doctor finds a tumor in you, and immediately wants to rip it and everything around it out, without testing to find out what it is, or the best way to treat it, and you don't say anything. Well, that's your problem. You should see another doctor, to get another opinion at least.

Answer 3

You seriously need to do your research and not just make assumptions.
Tumors in cases of breast cancer is usually removed ASAP, because while it may be benign when the test is done, the tumor can quickly become malignant. Therefore, it's in the patients best interest to remove it. Some tumors are MUCH easier to remove than others. Breast cancer, for instance, is actually the EASIEST to remove. Brain tumors on the other hand, are extremely hard to remove. Also, when prostate cancer is discovered, most people have already progressed past the stage where surgery is viable.
If you had breast cancer, would you like to use drugs that would make you lose your hair, make you nauseas, and make you extremely tired rather than have a surgery that you'd be unconscious for?

Answer 4

You are quite misguided. Cancer will kill a person. there is no doubt about it. By removing a tumor, the chance to survive is there. for some cancer there is Chemo therapy and/or radiation first and than the doctor will operate. After the operation, the treatment will continue. I have seen members of my family and friends who survived both operation and treatment and they are well now.

Answer 5

i guess at a glance what you say seems frustrating, but there is so much more to it than what meets the eye. the WHOLE medical world cant be against women. it isnt some elaborate conspiracy... :)

cancer kills. the treament is meant to kill the cancer cells, and keep you alive. or at least, reduce the pain and suffering that comes with cancer.

cancer is when normal cells mutate, grow rapidly and basicly takes everything out of your body's resources. it moves to diff organs and shuts them down.

but the difference here is what type of cell in your body that mutates to cancer cells. this gives rise to diff cancers, coming from all diff organs. and diff cancers grow at diff rates and react differently to the current chemo theraphy that we know. it also depends on how well we can operate and remove a tumour, some places just arent surgically accesible.

now to your statement on breast, uterus and prostate removal.

you are aware of more mastectomy because this cancer is more prevalent than most other cancer. we also know alot about this cancer, and aware that early intervention can really save lives. so much so, that it gets more media attention than others. removal of a breast is psychologically devastating for a women, but it doesnt hurt her system any other way. it saves her life!

and any cancer is first analysed, tissue samples taken, and mastectomy done only if it is a malignant tumour.

prostate cancers arent as prevalent as breast cancers. but do you know that the gold standard for prostate cancer is removal of the prostate and both the testis in the man! the goes his source of male hormones and he is not even put on supplement hormones because this may cause the cancer to spread faster. talk about a blow to your masculanity.

and you think guys get it easy......

Answer 6

the reason they remove the tumor is because it could become malignent, therefore spreading and ultimately killing the person. My Uncle had a cancerous brain tumor, and is only alive now because they surgically removed it and gave him treatments. My friend growing up, her mother had breast cancer, sadly they discovered it too late and she passed away. But my friend was diagnosed with lukema, and bone cancer...we were 7 when this happened, we're now 23. Cancer treatment helped her.

Answer 7

You are correct.
The treatment is made to force the body to defend itself and hopefully the cancer dies out before the body gives out.
Messing with female plumbing is like messing with the thyroid. If you remove only part of it, you'll have to constantly adjust your meds. If you remove the whole part, then the meds can be applied more accurately.

Answer 8

Making dietary changes is your first line of defense in treating hypothyroidism. Learn here https://tr.im/fWRys

Many people with hypothyroidism experience crippling fatigue and brain fog, which prompts reaching for non-nutritional forms of energy like sugar and caffeine. I’ve dubbed these rascals the terrible twosome, as they can burn out your thyroid (and destabilize blood sugar).

1. Just say no to the dietary bungee cord. Greatly reduce or eliminate caffeine and sugar, including refined carbohydrates like flour, which the body treats like sugar. Make grain-based carbohydrates lesser of a focus, eating non-starchy vegetables to your heart’s content.

2. Up the protein. Protein transports thyroid hormone to all your tissues and enjoying it at each meal can help normalize thyroid function. Proteins include nuts and nut butters; quinoa; hormone- and antibiotic-free animal products (organic, grass-fed meats, eggs, and sustainably-farmed fish); and legumes.

Answer 9

2

Answer 10

1