Maggie's Farm

It really wouldn't be as large a financial disaster as you assume.

The 'cure' would command a hefty price, in and of itself. But more importantly, other diseases or problems would take center stage.

An example, though from a completely different standpoint, is what my father went through (he was a plastic surgeon) when the lawyers killed silicone implants. Well over 50% of his business was derived from silicone implants. While saline implants were a viable alternative, he saw his business decline significantly in the first few years of the silicone lawsuits. However, at the same time, the skin cancer issue started becoming more prevalent. It's no coincidence.
The same people who were so concerned with their looks, and getting implants, are also the same people who spent a great deal of time out in the sun, developing skin cancers. His business shifted, like any other business.

While that example isn't exactly perfect, it's informative. Doctors who specialize in these fields have capabilities which can easily transfer to deal with other life-threatening diseases.

It's also worth noting that all cancers are not exactly the same. A 'cure' for leukemia is highly unlikely to 'cure' breast cancer or colon cancer. Each cancer is significantly different, as are the treatments. The concept of "A Cure for Cancer" is a very broad statement. My sister-in-law just went through a year's worth of treatment for breast cancer (she is young, and it was at a stage with only 40% survivability) and spent a considerable sum on having it dealt with. She was declared cancer free only a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile, my niece was diagnosed with pre-cancerous polyps in her colon. The treatment will likely be long term (she's only 9), but at this point it's ongoing treatment and observation.
At the same time, my uncle is dealing with a prostate cancer which required surgery, in and out in a day. Early detection, high survivability rate.

In most cases the cost, the treatment, and all the issues you THINK would be dealt with by a 'cure' are determined by things like history, awareness and detection, and the type of cancer in question.

Fun to say "a cure for cancer" and have high hopes for just such a thing. The reality, of course, is something altogether different.

It's unfair to lump it all on the doctors. I don't disagree that some are probably just in it to keep people happy. But most doctors I've dealt with (admittedly, as a doctor's son I tend to ask many questions) are pretty honest about what the options are and what the outcome is likely to be.

A very good friend of my family's has a mother who has been incapacitated for many years. Our friend's wife has been a stay-at-home caretaker for the woman. Recently, the mother developed cancer (she's very old, over 80, and is on a feeding tube already). Financially strapped, they chose to have her undergo treatment DESPITE the doctor, the parish priest, and friends all suggesting she not get the treatment, and only get a visiting nurse service to ease the pain and help her through the final stages.

Now the stay-at-home wife has more work to do, they're in even worse financial shape, and it's not a topic for discussion, because mama must have her treatment.

I'm not one to judge. We want things for emotional reasons, and clearly someone just isn't willing to let go. The doctor must live up to his oath and provide the care requested, though he informed them that it's not really going to enhance her life in any way, and will cost a fortune.


And people wonder why medical costs are out of control?

I'll refer you to one Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose father received extraordinary care at the end of his life. Care that was over and above the usual for a man his age, and at a time when this woman was seeking to deny others the same access.

I don't deny her the right to get that care for her father - it's a choice. But she had no right to be pushing an agenda that would deny me the same rights she had (though I likely would've made an entirely different decision than her).

For what it's worth, I agree with GWTW. I haven't had to deal with this personally, so I have no idea.

My wife and I have agreed that if extraordinary circumstances are in play, both of us would agree to a DNR, so perhaps that informs what my view is to a degree. But if I'm making the decision for myself, the questions I would ask are:
1. How long and what are the odds of longer survival?
2. What would my quality of life be during and after treatment?
3. What extenuating circumstances and extraordinary care should I be prepared to engage, if any, and how might that impact my finances?

There are probably a few more questions I'd ask, but these are the main ones.

Generally, the answer is no - I wouldn't. My aunt (yes, there have been a number of cancer items in my family recently) died of colon cancer last June. After treating it aggressively for several years, she realized the fight wasn't worth it.
She was a Liberal die-hard, but I don't know if she used Medicaid. I doubt it. Not that she couldn't or wouldn't, just that I know she made money on a couple of stock recommendations I'd made over the years, and she had a pretty good pension through her husband (who died in the 80's from pancreatic cancer).


It's funny, but I never stopped to think about how many people in my family have had brushes with cancer, but for a family the size of mine, it's quite a few. Very few, interestingly, are blood relatives. When I think of how large my family is, and I reflect on the number of members who I know have dealt with cancer, it's about 5%, of which about 1% were blood relatives.

I just checked, and both percentages are pretty high if you think of cancer of all kinds as a single entity. Good thing I visit my doctor regularly and don't smoke, I guess.