Dying of an illness that could be cured is a great shame at any age so a cancer cure would be brilliant. I agree with you on one point though, we keep too many people alive artificially when there is no chance of ever getting better by this i mean people in their 80s/90s in care homes and such who will never leave their beds again and in many cases have no idea what is going on around them (or if they do are embarrassed by their condition). We keep the population artificially high to make their family feel as if they are doing the right thing, in many cases they are not, just drawing out the misery of their loved one's. Our old lady went in hospital aged 68 with stomach cancer, the nurses and doctors kept saying she was doing well. One day she called me in from work and told me she wasn't coming out, i said don't be silly course you are. D i am tiered and have had enough, just wanted to say goodbye. She refused any further medication and 2 day's later she was gone. I think a lot more would make that choice if they still had the mental capacity. .
I think there are certain conditions where people would rather choose to end their life because the quality of life is so compromised that life isn't life anymore. And their loved ones have to go through the trauma of it. In fact they end up mourning for their loss twice. First when they lose them when they're alive, and then when they pass away. Multiple sclerosis being one example. The thing is though, you look at that article sucky's posted about somebody who could've faced a lifetime of paralysis now being able to walk, run swim. Now imagine if they did similar with MS, or dementia or heart disease or cancer. Now you live until you're 100+ but at the same time you have the health of a 40/50 year old?
Oh i know that, i was talking more about the people lay in beds all day and don't recognise their own children. hopefully one day we can cure them too but i doubt it very much because we all reach an end sometime, some suddenly with heart attack (our old fella on his way to the pub) or some take longer staying in a perpetual state of helplesness being kept alive on ventilators and drugs with no idea what is going on or say in it. Just to add to the spinal chip development, R5 had one of the team fronting it on today, apparently one of the patients has since fathered a child (something he was never expected to do), the treatment affects many other problems related to spinal/nerve trauma.
How do you manage that though? Who decides who lives or who dies and what the threshold should be? As you say families want their loved ones to live as long as possible. But even if they wanted to end their suffering or non-existence, they can't can they? Only in situations like coma's or when they're on a life support machine with no hope of recovery and the family make the decision to switch it off. But other than that there's an invariable desire to keep a parent as comfortable as possible because the choice really isn't there to end life is there? So we see it out. Yeh I read that on a BBC article. Life eh!
Yellow and red cards. If your born ****ed you get a free one time fix up. Then you gotta use your cards. The rest explains itself
The decision is not for the family to feel good about visiting them once a week, it's for the quality of life for the infirm. You don't have to kill someone for them to die, just don't keep them alive artificially when they don't even know they are alive.
No I get that, I said it's to end their suffering or their basic non-existence. So who decides not to keep them alive artificially? And is it just the elderly you're talking about or younger people with complex needs such as muscular dystrophy with autism and who are non-verbal for example? I'm worried about the slippery slope this may lead to that's all.
‘Major breakthrough’ on pancreatic cancer as scientists on cusp of two-in-one treatment to extend life https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...pancreatic-cancer-diagnosis-b2009285.html?amp
Ohh i get you there, it's the God syndrome kicking in. Very hard to say when withdrawl of medication should kick in which is why i would never make a physician
That's incredible. One of the worst cancers for survival rates isn't it? Along with bowel cancer I think. And then a cure. Fcking brilliant if it happens.
Well... All the thing you can't cure now but will able to in the future, let's say the guy in the orginal article who had the crash. He uses his yellow card to get what he's had done now to fix it (or better by then completely fix it for example) Then 20 years later he gets cancer and has to use his red to cure his cancer (hopefully forever) After that he's out of cards and chances. please log in to view this image
Yeah. 50% die within 3 months of diagnosis and only 25% live longer than one year. Its a cancer that you can't see or touch so it's normally spread rapidly by the point of diagnosis.
Well it takes out the age discrimination argument and leaves to it natural chance/selection (kinda - cos you are cheating still) and essentially fairness. I like **** to be fair
Always about the diagnosis aint it. Any cancer, you diagnosis it early enough you have a chance. Whilst we rely on GP's etc to diagnose early, there are some like this one which you can't even if you try. Reading that article though, the good thing is they can deal with it late on.
I'm gonna get my dna frozen and stored for 500yrs anyway. When they bring me back I'm turning myself into a sex cyborg.
Yeah it's great news. Pancreatic cancer is expected to overtake breast cancer as a bigger killer within the next decade. I think its mostly prevalent in men and its on the rise and I don't think there's enough awareness about it. Its something us blokes should be very mindful of.
We'll be back at some point, but not in the future. If they can look back in time through space then one day in the future they'll find a way to look at what we are doing right now.
