Metastatic liver cancer

For those that are new on this blog, a short summary of "Metastatic Liver Cancer".

Metastatic was the word we quite didn’t understand in the beginning. We heard ‘liver cancer’ so we were looking at all things to make the liver better.

Yet "Metastatic" was the word we missed. Metastatic is best translated as:

bad luck: you have 2 cancers

It took us a long time to understand that father had :

• a Metastatic cancer causing a second:
• Liver Cancer

To make things worse, doctors never found the first metastatic cancer. In other words:

father was death meat from the moment the doctors told him he had metastatic liver cancer.

Only now after all these months I can clearly understand why the doctors where no more paying interest in what father wanted to do or not do, for them the matter was closed medically: we cannot cure you, so you better go shopping around in some other department…

Because they both smile and just say whatever when they are smiling…

Remember how agitated I become when an educated doctor in why cancer is still around says that cancer is caused because "people still smoke".

Do we have a choice than to breath in smoke?????

Bush nicely smiling away saying that next year (read: after I am gone!) we (read: whoever has to clean up Bushes’ 8 year pollution) are going to speak with China and India about smoke pollution.

Why is the biggest polluter USA still waiting yet another year to make a start so we can breath in clean air again for a change???

Technorati Tags: Cancer | Cancer prevention | Bush | Fresh air | Pollution | Politicians | Politics | Democracy | Ideas | Cancer treatment | Smokel

Cleaning up comments, I came across this very interesting comment of Jane Chin on my post : Why is cancer still around?

Summarized I said:

• because cancer is big business for the drug and medicine companies,
• because cancer brings in lots of money for the hospitals.

Jane says:

I disagree with the logic that cancer is around because it is a business. People get cancer for all sorts of reasons - poor prevention (people still smoke and burn themselves under the sun to get a tan) or unlucky genetics to name a couple of those reasons. It is true that healthcare providers and drug companies generate a revenue from the products and services around cancer. However, the
implication that somehow there is no cure for cancer or even a causation of cancer because there is a conspiracy of greed seems in my personal opinion a flawed over-generalization.

My opinion and comment on Jane Chin’s comment

I agree when Jane says there is poor prevention:

• poor: if you have no money, your health will suffer from it
• poor prevention:
• every day I have to breath in sick air because oil and charcoal businesses do everything they can in order not to get healthy energy getting in the way to make a profit
• every day most of us are eating food with residues of pesticides, antibiotics and hormones, how to prevent diseases if you cannot eat healthy?

We humans live on food and air, but where do we find healthy food and healthy air?

Therefore I say that a conspiracy of greed is an under-generalization! Why no stem-cell research? Because of moral reasons? Who is telling me what morals to follow?

Cancer is about cells… If you could find a stem-cell cancer cure : what morals do you have to justify it is morally unjust to cure a person?

All feedback most welcome!

Technorati Tags: Cancer | Cancer cure | Business | Fresh air | Pollution | Politicians | Politics | Democracy | Ideas | Cancer treatment | Stem cell