PDA

View Full Version : If they could?



cuddlepop
18-Aug-09, 12:47
Just found out today that a young mother of 5 has lost her fight with cancer,she was only 29.Once again this cancer was missed until it was too late.:~(

Do you think we should concentrate funding on finding a cure for this deadly disease?

It seems that there is so much money going into a wide range of "ailments" that maybe if it was concentrated we might just find a cure sooner rather than later.:(

Liz
18-Aug-09, 12:58
What a tragedy that this young mother has lost her life.:~(

Sadly, though there are many other illnesses which affect people and they can't be ignored to concentrate on cancer.

It sounds like better detection is the answer if the young woman's cancer was missed.

cuddlepop
18-Aug-09, 14:35
What a tragedy that this young mother has lost her life.:~(

Sadly, though there are many other illnesses which affect people and they can't be ignored to concentrate on cancer.

It sounds like better detection is the answer if the young woman's cancer was missed.

I agree better detection is required so that fewer cancers are missed but dont you think that if cancer was "blitzed" we'd find a cure faster.

I know there are plenty other diseases out there that require research but maybe there are just too many to make any positive headway.:(

shazzap
18-Aug-09, 14:41
What a shame, i know only too well how a wrong diagnosis can have devastating effect on your life. But this poor young woman paid the ultimate price with her life.

Rheghead
18-Aug-09, 15:12
Better detection is essential to combat this terrible disease but it also comes with better prevention. Regardless of this young mother's own circumstances, we get told about the higher risks of smoking, obesity, drinking, eating red meat and exposure to all sorts of other carcinogenic agents but all too often the misinformed mantra of 'if we took every bit of advice then we would eat nothing' still holds true in the popular psyche.

The doctors say take more exercise, drink less than 20 units, cut down on red meat, stop smoking, they must recommend this for a reason?:confused

Aw well, doing all they say doesn't make you live longer, it'll just make it seem that way...:~(

BINBOB
18-Aug-09, 16:41
Very sad to hear this..........but do agree with LIZ..there are many other conditions...some u will never hear of that really need support too.

Life is a lottery ,sadly.

cuddlepop
18-Aug-09, 16:55
Very sad to hear this..........but do agree with LIZ..there are many other conditions...some u will never hear of that really need support too.

Life is a lottery ,sadly.


Life is indeed a lottery.

What really annoys me more than anything about this young woman is that she was caring for a child with a physical disability,therefore anytime she went to the docs her symptoms were put down to stress.

All to often carers health suffer because of chronic stress. A physical condition shouldnt have been missed.

See the person not the carer.:~(

BINBOB
18-Aug-09, 17:31
Ahh.....that is absolutely dreadful.........poor woman.Ido think drs. tend to go for the easier option rather than anything else..........when I was in throws of developing diabetes type 1.my very [usually] helpful,kind gp......told me Iwas thirsty as it was summer!!!!!

I struggled on for 3 more weeks.........extremely ill,blood sugar of 42.ketotic......vomiting,so exhausted I could barely stand........then he turned up on my doorstep one evening.........a blood check at the ASTHMA clinic told the story as DIABETES.I spent 10 days in hospital recovering and being treated.
The rest is history...........From then on in..I took control.........I am a very pro active patient...question EVERYTHING........and I decide the best route for me.
bless the woman and her family...........so very sad.:(

tonkatojo
18-Aug-09, 18:00
What a tragedy that this young mother has lost her life.:~(

Sadly, though there are many other illnesses which affect people and they can't be ignored to concentrate on cancer.

It sounds like better detection is the answer if the young woman's cancer was missed.


It is a tough world outside our own front doors, I do not know the girl's circumstances regarding detection treatment or the reporting of something wrong in the first instance, but I can only have sympathy for her family. I too suffer from a couple of debilitating illnesses and I wish a cure for them would be found but things seem to take second place or third place to self inflicted diseases these days.

badger
18-Aug-09, 18:24
It is a tough world outside our own front doors, I do not know the girl's circumstances regarding detection treatment or the reporting of something wrong in the first instance, but I can only have sympathy for her family. I too suffer from a couple of debilitating illnesses and I wish a cure for them would be found but things seem to take second place or third place to self inflicted diseases these days.

That is so true. Maybe if less money and time was spent on illnesses caused by drink and drugs, there would be more for the innocent victims of cancer. Something seriously wrong with priorities.

theone
18-Aug-09, 18:46
I'm no expert, but 'Cancer' isn't an individual disease, different cancers can vary immensely and so require different treatments. I assume cures would be the same.

One thing I do have a gripe with is all the Cancer charities out there.

Each one has paid staff, directors etc, such that for every pound they get so much gets paid in wages and costs.

The more charities, the more costs, and the smaller the percentage of contributions that actually go towards a cure. If these research charities really only exist to find a cure, why don't they pool their resources and cut costs?

BINBOB
18-Aug-09, 18:48
I'm no expert, but 'Cancer' isn't an individual disease, different cancers can vary immensely and so require different treatments. I assume cures would be the same.

One thing I do have a gripe with is all the Cancer charities out there.

Each one has paid staff, directors etc, such that for every pound they get so much gets paid in wages and costs.

The more charities, the more costs, and the smaller the percentage of contributions that actually go towards a cure. If these research charities really only exist to find a cure, why don't they pool their resources and cut costs?


Have to agree with this...

cuddlepop
18-Aug-09, 19:39
That is so true. Maybe if less money and time was spent on illnesses caused by drink and drugs, there would be more for the innocent victims of cancer. Something seriously wrong with priorities.

Thats another very good point.

It beggers believe that if you have an alcohol or drug problem everyone seems to fall over themselves to help you.:(

Priorities is the isue here I think, aswell as better detection and a resulting cure.

Thumper
18-Aug-09, 20:18
That is so true. Maybe if less money and time was spent on illnesses caused by drink and drugs, there would be more for the innocent victims of cancer. Something seriously wrong with priorities.

While I agree that cancer is an illness that needs more money spent on finding a cure I have to disagree with not spending money on illness caused by drink or drugs-these illnesses are STILL an illness,perhaps they would not have had such illness if they had not become dependant on drink or drungs but the fact remains that they are ill because of a dependecy that has then caused other illness but no the less it is still an illness x

catran
18-Aug-09, 20:40
That is so true. Maybe if less money and time was spent on illnesses caused by drink and drugs, there would be more for the innocent victims of cancer. Something seriously wrong with priorities.
How true, however it must be very difficult for the hard pressed doctors as so many people are presenting with strange symptons when they want extra holidays, especially summertime and in the end get signed off work with STRESS the modern day illness .Unlike serious debilitating illness when a patient is really ill they can go galavanting around with no deterrant as they have a doctor's line......

scorrie
18-Aug-09, 21:49
Probably everybody would tell you they would love to see a cure for cancer. Take that statement onwards and then ask how many would be willing to PAY to help that notion become a reality?

My answer?

Not very many!!

For every scenario where we read about a a tragic circumstance in the world, which could be fixed, in some small way, with a few quid, you will see a family who decide it is better to spend their "Hard-earned" on a KFC boneless bucket, three bottles of wine for a tenner, or an obscenely large chocolate cake that "serves twelve" but somehow manages to shoehorn its way down the throats of only TWO viewers of Britain's Got Talent. Very often all three "items" will be on the menu.

Even people who are not the couch-grazers of the nation have better uses for their money. I am as guilty as the rest, but I try to refrain from criticising the use of resources when I know that, in most cases, people do not want to spend a penny piece on helping the situation and expect the government to "magic up" a solution in our purely consumerist society.

tonkatojo
18-Aug-09, 21:57
Probably everybody would tell you they would love to see a cure for cancer. Take that statement onwards and then ask how many would be willing to PAY to help that notion become a reality?

My answer?

Not very many!!

For every scenario where we read about a a tragic circumstance in the world, which could be fixed, in some small way, with a few quid, you will see a family who decide it is better to spend their "Hard-earned" on a KFC boneless bucket, three bottles of wine for a tenner, or an obscenely large chocolate cake that "serves twelve" but somehow manages to shoehorn its way down the throats of only TWO viewers of Britain's Got Talent. Very often all three "items" will be on the menu.

Even people who are not the couch-grazers of the nation have better uses for their money. I am as guilty as the rest, but I try to refrain from criticising the use of resources when I know that, in most cases, people do not want to spend a penny piece on helping the situation and expect the government to "magic up" a solution in our purely consumerist society.

Lots of people I know donate through charity boxes, the problem is there are to many different "cancer charity's". the word cancer covers numerous aspects of the disease almost as many as the word steroid covers many treatments. But have to agree there are to many chiefs and admin hangers on.

Vistravi
18-Aug-09, 22:01
That is so true. Maybe if less money and time was spent on illnesses caused by drink and drugs, there would be more for the innocent victims of cancer. Something seriously wrong with priorities.

Very true. Agree with every word but have to say that for the people with these problems that want help then they should be given it but for the people that waste valuable transplanted livers because all they care about is drink i say leave them to it and give that organ to someone who will take care of it and won't destroy it.

I know that is harsh but it is only my opinion and i can be quite harsh when i feel it is needed.

tonkatojo
18-Aug-09, 22:02
Probably everybody would tell you they would love to see a cure for cancer. Take that statement onwards and then ask how many would be willing to PAY to help that notion become a reality?

My answer?

Not very many!!

For every scenario where we read about a a tragic circumstance in the world, which could be fixed, in some small way, with a few quid, you will see a family who decide it is better to spend their "Hard-earned" on a KFC boneless bucket, three bottles of wine for a tenner, or an obscenely large chocolate cake that "serves twelve" but somehow manages to shoehorn its way down the throats of only TWO viewers of Britain's Got Talent. Very often all three "items" will be on the menu.

Even people who are not the couch-grazers of the nation have better uses for their money. I am as guilty as the rest, but I try to refrain from criticising the use of resources when I know that, in most cases, people do not want to spend a penny piece on helping the situation and expect the government to "magic up" a solution in our purely consumerist society.

Lots of people I know donate through charity boxes, the problem is there are to many different "cancer charity's". the word cancer covers numerous aspects of the disease almost as many as the word steroid covers many treatments. But have to agree there are to many chiefs and admin hangers on.
Why do the cures seem to be found and then we cannot afford them or the NHS can't, it confuses me are we subsidising the drug company's through charity boxes only to be ripped of at the cost of "super drug cures".

scorrie
18-Aug-09, 22:09
Lots of people I know donate through charity boxes, the problem is there are to many different "cancer charity's". the word cancer covers numerous aspects of the disease almost as many as the word steroid covers many treatments. But have to agree there are to many chiefs and admin hangers on.

Come on now!!

How much goes into a charity box, compared to how much we could actually afford?

People pop some change into a box and perhaps feel a bit better about having given something, but how does that compare to the amount of money we spend on things that are not doing our OWN health any good?

No doubt you have a point about resources not being used to best advantage but the uncomfortable fact is that we live in a pretty decadent society, where health of ourselves and others is not a big priority. Historically, I am sure you will find numerous people who only got involved in a particular health charity after a family member, or friend, of theirs became affected. We are very often ignorant of such matters and I think that we should find our own priorities in life before accusing others of misplacing theirs.

S&LHEN
18-Aug-09, 22:13
Im with Thumper on this one all illnesses are equaly important you dont know what goes on in peoples lives before they start drinking and taking drugs. Its only when you do support work or have personal experiences you will understand how they are equally as important.






While I agree that cancer is an illness that needs more money spent on finding a cure I have to disagree with not spending money on illness caused by drink or drugs-these illnesses are STILL an illness,perhaps they would not have had such illness if they had not become dependant on drink or drungs but the fact remains that they are ill because of a dependecy that has then caused other illness but no the less it is still an illness x

tonkatojo
18-Aug-09, 22:17
Come on now!!

How much goes into a charity box, compared to how much we could actually afford?

People pop some change into a box and perhaps feel a bit better about having given something, but how does that compare to the amount of money we spend on things that are not doing our OWN health any good?

No doubt you have a point about resources not being used to best advantage but the uncomfortable fact is that we live in a pretty decadent society, where health of ourselves and others is not a big priority. Historically, I am sure you will find numerous people who only got involved in a particular health charity after a family member, or friend, of theirs became affected. We are very often ignorant of such matters and I think that we should find our own priorities in life before accusing others of misplacing theirs.

Your last sentence is probably the reason why, and the fact most people pay national insurance to fund research and think charity should not have to come into the equation.

scorrie
18-Aug-09, 22:26
Your last sentence is probably the reason why, and the fact most people pay national insurance to fund research and think charity should not have to come into the equation.

National Insurance is not optional once you reach a certain level of income. Are you trying to say that millions of people would not opt out of the scheme were it not compulsory? I would bet my last penny that they would!!

I know of people whom I worked with that refused to pay 25p per week from their wages towards local charities!!

I think you are missing my point about where we choose to spend our disposable income. New Cars, big tellies, fancier houses or a better Healthcare System? It's a tough call.

tonkatojo
18-Aug-09, 22:39
National Insurance is not optional once you reach a certain level of income. Are you trying to say that millions of people would not opt out of the scheme were it not compulsory? I would bet my last penny that they would!!

I know of people whom I worked with that refused to pay 25p per week from their wages towards local charities!!

I think you are missing my point about where we choose to spend our disposable income. New Cars, big tellies, fancier houses or a better Healthcare System? It's a tough call.

No I'm not saying that, millions of people, I doubt that very much, most appreciate what we have and know it's not perfect but it has got to be better than say the US way when only the well off can afford the insurance premiums for the way your suggesting, or are in employment and the firm pays for it. Is this what you mean ?Also the insurance company's don't want to know you when fall ill with serious disease and terminate your policy on the next renewal. I don't presume to tell people what to do with their disposable income, I just leave it to their conscience.

badger
18-Aug-09, 22:49
Im with Thumper on this one all illnesses are equaly important you dont know what goes on in peoples lives before they start drinking and taking drugs. Its only when you do support work or have personal experiences you will understand how they are equally as important.

Having been involved with alcoholics in the past, I know it's an illness that cannot be cured but it is possible to get enough help to be able to stay off that and drugs - not easy but not impossible. However I was thinking more of the current fashion for "getting wasted" which is completely different and costs a fortune in A&E plus crime. Drug taking also often starts as a social thing so personal choice.

Cancer is not so easily avoided except when it is caused by smoking or some other known cause. It can come out of nowhere and the sufferer is helpless.