[____tom____]

On the spectrum or go gentle vs fight, I'd have to say, now is the time is history where "fight" makes the most sense.

This is not abstract for me. I have not one, but two forms of cancer.

Both were considered incurable when I was diagnosed.

Both have treatments now that, IN SOME PEOPLE, lead to remission.

I still don't know which group I am, but I'd be dead from either one by now, if I hadn't elected to treat.

New treatments, for SOME cancers are literally coming out monthly.

So the fact that you can't be cured today, does mean there won't be a better treatment by next year, if you can hang on.

I should find out soon on my more aggressive one. Either way, I plan on continuing to try.

[bruce511]

Lots of people will take any treatment offered. Indeed I would. That's a perfectly acceptable approach.

Yes, medical treatments are improving and hanging on is a good approach cause something may be around the corner.

I don't think the article is advocating for no treatment ever.

I think it is advocating for a balanced understanding of what treatment looks like, and balances that with quality of life. And indeed balances your age as well.

If I'm 80, I'm (somewhat) less concerned with length of life, and more concerned with quality. If I'm 50 that's a different equation.

It's very much a personal choice, but to make a choice you have to have information. And it's helpful if you can make the choice in a calm relaxed environment. Both can be missing immediately after hearing a diagnosis.

The point is that medical intervention is usually desired. But equally there's a place for acceptance and contentment.

[zemvpferreira]

The father of a good friend passed away recently from a brain cancer. He was a doctor, but atypically accepted every treatment available. His last 3 years were spent in surgery or sick from chemo, did not have one good day after his initial diagnosis. If he could have gone back I'm sure he would have decided not to be treated.

[xandrius]

Unless going back gets you to re-roll your dice then I'm sure they would still have done it.

[zemvpferreira]

You might not want it for yourself but many people, especially health professionals in my experience, will take a smaller but less painful lifespan over a chance to live longer through horrible treatments.

[inglor_cz]

Yeah, it is a big difference to undergo aggressive treatment at 50 vs. 80. Not just because of the potential years or months gained, but also because older bodies don't heal that well, or at all.

This is something that may be revolutionized through regenerative medicine, but hasn't so far.

[teiferer]

Agreeing with your overall sentiment, but this caught my eye:

> If I'm 80, I'm (somewhat) less concerned with length of life, and more concerned with quality. If I'm 50 that's a different equation

Why is that? Is quality less important at 50? Would you be more willing to endure suffering if you are younger? Why? I'm thinking that no matter age, people would generally like to avoid a painful death. Maybe it's because it feels more likely to "beat this thing" when you are younger, and then still potentially have decades ahead of you?

[buran77]

> Why is that?

By 80 most people have reconciled with the idea that they don't have too many years left even in the best of conditions. There's no hope of extending life, and there's little to look forward to, they already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see. Quality is all that's left to hope for.

At 50 they still can still hope for recovery and a life beyond that. They have a lot of moments and milestones ahead of them, at least with family and loved ones - see their kids graduate, get married, or have their own children. So if the hope is stronger than the pain, they'll sacrifice the quality of life.

[Someone]

> By 80 most people have […] already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see.

That’s at least partially culturally determined. As the healthy live expectancy creeps up slowly, I expect that idea to change. There’s some truth in the saying “50 is the new 40”

[yunwal]

This doesn’t really make a difference in the argument. You can sub 80 with 90 and the point remains the same. There is some age where you stop caring about trying to be cured, and just care about the quality of life in the immediate future

[Someone]

It makes, if cultural expectations lag reality of longer life spans.

I think it does; society thinks 80-year olds are physically less fit than they are in reality, shaping expectations of what 80-year olds should want, and I also think 80-year olds are influenced (even if slightly) by that.

[tonyedgecombe]

My parents are in their eighties and they still have a good quality of life and things to look forward to.

They do have some health issues but they aren’t decrepit.

[buran77]

That's good to hear but that wasn't really the topic of the conversation. We were discussing people with life threatening illness where the treatment severely lowers quality of life for a very uncertain outcome.

Do you think the "things to look forward to" would incentivize your parents to focus on clinging to life at the expense of drastically increased suffering and plummeting quality of life, or on maximizing the quality they still have at the expense of losing some months or years?

Even if you are still in good condition overall, at that age you know you're probably running your last lap and the things to look forward to are nowhere near as satisfying as they were even a few decades earlier. You can always find joy in the little things but they're always shadowed by other inevitabilities.

Many healthy years to you and your family.

[tonyedgecombe]

I was responding to "there's little to look forward to, they already lived through all the important milestones they could realistically see .." which seems to imply that by 80 life is over and not worth living.

[sleepychu]

I think you've got it exactly right:

- what is the expected gain? Years+Quality

- what is the maximum gain? Years+Quality

The older you are the smaller your maximum gain of Years can be.

[rlpb]

What if you have young kids? It might be worth the suffering for their benefit.

[robocat]

Perhaps don't have kids in your 40s. It's pretty mean to have kids at 50 because of the high risk of sickness or death while they're teenagers (or younger). Plus the risks of genetic faults in children rises dramatically for dads or mums much over about 40. After 40 kids will often miss out on having grandparents.

Our society says parents can make whatever choices they like, but having children is one of those places when we should be thinking of others (the kids) not ourselves.

I decided against having kids when I reached 40ish for the above reasons (along with some other reasons).

[ComputerPerson]

Pancreatic cancer caregiver here.

It's a battle, not a boxing match, that you're fighting. No shame in a battle chant or maybe even a battle cry.

[garyrob]

I had cancer, it came back twice in 5 years, but now I'm 10 years out from the last time and my odds are good. Just mentioning it, in case it's helpful to hear a positive anecdote.

Sending my hopes for your recovery. You're right that new research is yielding fruit, but I don't have to tell you that.

[charintstr]

Are you a youngish person (<60 yrs) ? If so then this article probably isn't meant for you. This is more meant for the thousands of elderly that get subjected to needless procedures in ICU when their chances of survival are already low. I can recount them from experience of working with people who administered them. This is just the case of American medicine. And in many other countries doctors wouldn't feel pressured to do this.

[hobo123]

The question to ask is: did those people who got remission do so because of the treatment, because of something else, or despite treatment?

It seems to me that much of modern chemotherapy is rather barbaric, but this is very much an outside view.

Wish you all the best, with medicine, or without.

[eth0up]

Sending thoughts of remission through the aether. And wishing your tries become success.

[sghiassy]

Sending good wishes

[mistic92]

I really hope for colorectal cancer treatment for my father, like daily checking if there is something new

[hexeater]

Hero - keep fighting!

[teiferer]

I think it's exactly this attitude which the article is about.

Of course I wish the best to whoever decides to fight. But fighting at any cost isn't the best advice.

[hirvi74]

Keep fighting the good fight, Internet friend. I look forward to reading your remission comment one day.

[stavros]

Give us an update in twenty years please.

[throwawayk7h]

if nothing works, try cryonics. Maybe AI-2040 is right and we'll be able to revive you in a few years.

[teiferer]

The cryonics industry is an unbelievable scam. You habe watched too much scifi my friend.

[mchinen]

Are you knowledgeable about this, and are you talking about the established institutions? If so please explain.

[teiferer]

You can start by reading about Larry Johnson's whistleblower story.

[Kinrany]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Johnson_(author)

From this description, the main controversy is the allegation of hastening the death of the patient. Not sure where's the scam though.

[brynnbee]

I don't know specifically how these operations advertise, but what some people might call a scam is that cryonics does factually damage your brain extensively, and it's unclear how well anyone could possibly recover from this damage. One of the common thoughts is that maybe super advanced future sci-fi level brain scans could digitize your brain, but taking anyone's money with that as a potential outcome is probably less than awesome. And there's no currently known way that we could thaw these people's brains in a way that would persist life basically at all.