My father was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer in 2007. He died in 2010 at the age of 60. I was 25. He too had multiple surgeries, chemo, radiation, etc. While we here in Canada don't pay directly for treatments, there was the cost of missed work, medical supplies, and the like. The following is directly, and deeply, informed by my own very personal experiences with cancer:
Let her die.
Chemo isn't going to save her, and it sure as hell won't improve her quality of life. It will give you maybe an extra year to watch her fade away before your eyes, and will inflict all manner of pain and discomfort on her in the process.
Your mother is going to die, far sooner than either of you would wish. That's unavoidable. What you do have control over is the quality of her life in her last few months, and in the effect that her passing has on the people she cares about. You can control how you spend what time you have left, but you have precious little control over how much of it you have to spend.
I'd suggest reading How Doctors Die[1], a take on how those who have the most experience with cancer and its treatments choose to deal with it. Generally speaking, they don't.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I watched my stepmother tear herself apart refusing to accept the inevitable and pushing for every last available treatment. The extra six months or so that may have afforded him are not a six months I would wish on anyone.
You are going to lose your mother, and it will break both of your hearts. Pumping poison into her and bankrupting your family won't change that. Make your peace, and let her go.
I'm very sorry about your father. My father was just diagnosed with cancer (literally today). Obviously what you wrote is not sound advice for all kinds of cancers. I have two close family relatives who were cured of two different kinds of cancers (yes "cured", as in they lived for a decade plus after being cured and one died from other causes and the other is still alive). There are also people who are cured through these poisons, even of late stage deadly cancers like stage iv pancreatic:
http://www.pancan.org/section_stories/story_details.php?id=1...
Ultimately how you choose to treat cancer depends on the stage, type of tumor, and the advice of your doctors. With that said, there are people who beat even the deadliest cancers, and that very small chance, is one worth thinking about.
No, it's not for all types of cancer. My advice relates only to those with terminal, metastatic cancer, and is not an admonition but rather a reflection on what I wish we had done.
>With that said, there are people who beat even the deadliest cancers, and that very small chance, is one worth thinking about.
I vividly recall looking at the 5-year survival rates for people diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer. <5%. <. I don't know if I've ever stared at a single character on a screen for so long. That was about a year or so before he died, and I remember the mental gymnastics I went through trying to rationalize how he would be the exception. At the time, it seemed unthinkable that we would give up. Of course we would pursue every option.
I can't say what I would do if I were in that position again; I can only say what I wish I'd done at the time.
Thanks I'm 26 and my dad is 59 and it's a serious cancer (not that any are "not serious") so I'm a similar age. I respect your story. I just wanted to point out the flip side of the equation - the real life, completely true, stories of the 5%.
lost 3 members of family during last 10 years to cancer. In one case it was caught at early stage and resulted in 9 years of life with last year being pretty hard. Earlier surgery and treatments were definitely worth it (i mean "worth" in general not in financial sense). In 2 other cases, late detection, despite pretty aggressive surgery and treatments - 2 years and 0.5 year with things going downhill pretty fast at the speed that one can't just stop and rethink the whole thing. In the last case i was directly responsible for the aggressiveness of approach and given the chance i hope i'd not do it this way again (though at the start it was "promised" more like 3-5 years instead of actual 0.5 years - in addition to cancer there are also very grave/deadly complications possible, including the ones from treatments and overall stress on the body by the illness, that one need to watch for very carefully). In the former case the first year wasn't that bad so i'd say it was worth it, problem is that it is very hard to stop at the right time where more treatments would only decrease quality of life.
Very few people are "cured". Most get life extensions ranging from 6 months to 5 years.
It's better to concentrate on letting one live their last days on their own terms. Meds and hospitals are pretty good at keeping people "alive" medically speaking. But all that extra time usually comes at a price.
It really depends on where you are in your life. I'd think that parents with young kids would want that extra 3 months. If you're older and your kids are older, perhaps it would be best to just let go.
It's not the quantity of years that you live that's important, it's the quality.
That is a deeply personal choice, and as a Brit one that I believe equally deeply should not have the threat of bankruptcy or the lack of funds as a factor in the decision.
Your advice, won through sorrow, may be very good advice. I remmeber when my own mother found out her cancer had returned after a remission, and I know I would fight any move to a society that made "Can we afford it?" a question at that time.
I am sorry for your loss and the OPs pending loss. This is not for you, but for everyone else reading in the US - for fucks sake sort your shit out guys.
QALYs are barely relevant in this discussion. Quality Adjusted Life Years are an attempt to allocate scarce resources in the absence of a pricing mechanism. It is by no means perfect, but thats not the point - it is used at the margins. Do we spend money on this cancer drug that will extend the life of 75 year old prostate cancer patients by 6 months or spend it on heart disease drugs for children giving them 50+ years. Unless you are one of the 75 year olds or children it is a pretty easy question.
But the question we do not ask ourselves is - do you have the means to pay now you are dying of a horribly expensive disease? No-one cares about QALYS here in the UK except when newspaper editors decide to go for a ratings pull
I feel the same. Getting bankrupt just to have a couple more years of miserable life?
What I know is: if I get ill will when my son is 22, I would never allow him to destroy his financial life because of me. I would hide in the woods to die there if necessary.
It is pretty funny how the guy complains so loooooong about his father and sister.
Let her die.
Chemo isn't going to save her, and it sure as hell won't improve her quality of life. It will give you maybe an extra year to watch her fade away before your eyes, and will inflict all manner of pain and discomfort on her in the process.
Your mother is going to die, far sooner than either of you would wish. That's unavoidable. What you do have control over is the quality of her life in her last few months, and in the effect that her passing has on the people she cares about. You can control how you spend what time you have left, but you have precious little control over how much of it you have to spend.
I'd suggest reading How Doctors Die[1], a take on how those who have the most experience with cancer and its treatments choose to deal with it. Generally speaking, they don't.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I watched my stepmother tear herself apart refusing to accept the inevitable and pushing for every last available treatment. The extra six months or so that may have afforded him are not a six months I would wish on anyone.
You are going to lose your mother, and it will break both of your hearts. Pumping poison into her and bankrupting your family won't change that. Make your peace, and let her go.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/your-money/how-doctors-die...