Prev: Screening for PCa
Next: 1st International Cancer Fatigue Symposium (10)
From: Ken T on 6 Aug 2008 11:57
Ray wrote:
> I certainly would raise serious questions about radiation, give your good
> luck so far. I suspect your urologist is concerned about legal
> ramifications
> more than medical. Urology is a high-risk field in the litigation arena. My
> earlier urologist took down his shingle when he reached the point of
> working
> chiefly for his insurance company.
>
> -- Ray
>
When I spent the night in the hospital, I was awake all
night, having slept all day, mostly. The TV was nothing
if not advertisements for lawyers looking for people who
want to sue doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical
companies. As I was going under, earlier that day, I
remember an OR nurse saying she was giving me a shot of
Heparin. That evening there was a lawyer ad looking for
Heparin sufferers who wanted to sue people. Small wonder
things are the way they are.

My ex's brother was a doctor. He quit and went into
another less insurance-intensive trade.
From: Ken T on 6 Aug 2008 12:25
Alan Meyer wrote:
> "Ken T" <bogusloop(a)cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Br0mk.5792$Zv3.789(a)newsfe01.iad...
>> ... Most of the men in my 6-gen ancestry died between the ages
>> of 80 and 105. True, they lived in an era with fewer toxins
>> about and they had unsurpassed work ethics - they were farmers
>> and lumberjacks, in Canada and northern Maine, mostly. But none
>> had PC and only one had cancer, stomach cancer. He died fairly
>> young at 60.
>
> Makes you wonder if an outdoor life is superior to our sit behind
> a computer, sit on a sofa lives, doesn't it?
>
Certainly less toxins and carcinogens floating around
back then and "up there". They ate locally produced
foods, worked hard in a clean environment, were muscular
and healthy. Bingo!

We shut out fresh air, favoring air conditioning,
breathe while sitting amidst carpeting and poly
furniture, drink treated water and eat treated foods. We
are fat and get smart much too late in life.

They died of old age and a general wearing out of parts.
We die of cancer, heart and pulmonary problems. Where I
live is Ground Zero for cancer. If at any time, you
don't know at least three people undergoing cancer
treatment, you haven't been out for coffee.

It's too late for us, but the real cure for cancer is
prevention. We have to find out what causes it and get
it gone!
>
>> ... But my surgeon is insecure and wants me to have radiation
>> also. I'm at odds with this. I have my post-op physical coming
>> up in a few weeks where I will try and see why he feels this
>> way. Assuming his 95% success rate with me is accurate, is this
>> radiation really necessary? Is it going to set me back in my
>> efforts to get back to normal? Back in diapers again?
>>
>> Is there a point where we are over-treated? How do we know when
>> we need the extra treatment or not? Am I safe in waiting a
>> while and monitoring my PSA before jumping right into rad?
>
> I'm not a doctor and not qualified to give medical advice, and
> even if I were, I haven't examined you or seen your test results.
> So my opinion is hardly authoritative. However, having said
> that, I'll say further that I agree with the previous responses
> you have received.
>
Me too. And as one I have come to suspect is the anchor
of reasonableness on this group, let me say I hang on
your every word, Alan.
>
(snipt)
>
> But in the absence of a rise in PSA, unless the doctor actually
> knows there is cancer left because he's seen it, e.g., in the
> lymph nodes or with positive margins, I personally would not even
> consider radiation.
>
> One thing I can't help wondering about your posting is why the
> doctor is recommending radiation. Is he ultra-radical in his
> treatment philosophy, i.e., hit cancer with everything possible?
> Is he trying to help a friend who is a radiation oncologist? Is
> he concerned that maybe he didn't do a great job in the surgery
> and wants backup from radiation?
>
Questions on my mind too. I'll look for answers on the
21st. But considering what I read here, I have been
exceptionally lucky throughout all this and it seems
largely because he did a good job rooting around in
there. I literally have no after-effects of the DaVinci
procedure except ED. If there is no cancer still in
there, I don't want radiation. I'm leaning towards
monitoring my PSA with the same people who have been
checking on it for the past 7 years, the VA. I'm leaning
towards "watchful waiting" for now.

Oh well, I will know more the 21st and will get a full
report with the numbers. I'll look for more advice from
you gents when I have more facts. One thing, I learn
more here than anywhere else. Thanks, all of you.
>
> If either of the last two reasons are the right ones, he'll
> probably never admit it. Alas, doctors are only too human.
>
True. And that's all I expect them to be. Well, being up
front can be a human trait too, eh?
From: I.P. Freely on 6 Aug 2008 20:56
Ken T wrote:
> safire wrote:

>> If the prostatectomy was successful, you had negative margins and
>> post-op PSA was undetectable, you should definitely ask him why he
>> wants you to undergo radiation treatment and ask for a second opinion.
> >
> I plan on doing just that. Thanks.

I got second ... and third ... and a whole onc teams' opinions. They all
recommended ADT just in case my PC might return some day despite neg
margins and undetectable PSA. I was still dubious, so, armed with
medical statistics and opinions and QOL priorities, I consulted the
world's leading expert on I.P. Freely's priorities. He was free, he
arbitrated the issue to my complete satisfaction, and he has a mirror
image at your service. Weigh your comparable counsel heavily.

I.P. Freely
The unchallenged world's leading expert on I.P. Freely's choices in life
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Screening for PCa
Next: 1st International Cancer Fatigue Symposium (10)