>...it is also imporant for us as a people to let go when nothing can be done, not to make things worse out of a need to be seen doing something.
The problem is you don't know for sure when nothing can be done. A coworker's sister was diagnosed with lung cancer and told the prognosis was grim. Three months, maybe. She considered a palliative treatment only approach, but in the end decided a tiny chance was better than no chance.
The cancer responded well to chemotherapy. Before it relapsed a drug was approved for this particular type of cancer (based on a DNA test). After six years she's still alive and in apparent good health.
Sometimes you get lucky, and the medical interventions do help. Now, the case in the article may be different in the sense that it was clear there was no hope from the very beginning. But that's not normal with cancer.
Yes, there are cases like this. But consider: what are the odds of misdiagnosis? Is that higher or lower than spontaneous remission? Is that higher or lower than a response to chemotherapy?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the "miracle" recoveries from cancer are simply misdiagnoses. Cancer is often a diagnosis of elimination. This is very easy to get wrong. Lesions are the tell-tale, but it is only inference that links them together. Millions of people have benign lesions that have naught to do with cancer.
And these stories are dangerous to the vast majority of (accurately diagnosed) cancer patients who have metastasized and are looking for miracles. This "slim ray of hope" takes away from them whatever slim shred of hope they had to make peace with death. And making peace with death is a huge quality of life issue for both the patient and their family, an issue which has been almost entirely ignored.
>Yes, there are cases like this. But consider: what are the odds of misdiagnosis?
In this case? Zero. She had surgery in which they removed a tumor and some lymph nodes, which were tested and found to be malignant. And, as I pointed out, they had to do DNA testing on the cancer to know if she would benefit from the drug she's taking.
>And these stories are dangerous to the vast majority of (accurately diagnosed) cancer patients who have metastasized and are looking for miracles.
So what are you advocating? That we shouldn't treat people that would potentially benefit from treatment? Five year survival rate for people diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer is a little less than 10%. Those aren't great odds, but on the other hand I wouldn't classify survival as a miracle, either.
The above is not a "miracle" recovery. She was treated medically, and responded well. Don't confuse that with people who go into remission without treatment.
I agree with you that there is a point at which individuals and families have to consider the balance between invasive treatment with small chance of success against accepting death and having a better quality of life during those months. But for most people, as long as those chances are even in the single digits, they're going to try for the treatment.
The problem is you don't know for sure when nothing can be done. A coworker's sister was diagnosed with lung cancer and told the prognosis was grim. Three months, maybe. She considered a palliative treatment only approach, but in the end decided a tiny chance was better than no chance.
The cancer responded well to chemotherapy. Before it relapsed a drug was approved for this particular type of cancer (based on a DNA test). After six years she's still alive and in apparent good health.
Sometimes you get lucky, and the medical interventions do help. Now, the case in the article may be different in the sense that it was clear there was no hope from the very beginning. But that's not normal with cancer.