General Medicine

» redback - 10 cm margin

Way back in the 60s, I worked with statistical analysis before I started on the ICD stuff.

On the surface, there is a big difference between our countries. Apart from the big reasons, I wonder if collation is partly responsible. The ICD should standardise it but immediate cause of death ...primary cause of death etc aren't the same as cancer at death..covered how? We don't record colo-rectal cancers in the stats it seems. how is metastatic cancer covered?

I think I read a difference in anti-cancer strategies, screening programs. But I really haven't read the data and now being 10.30pm Friday, tis really time for my belated dinner and bed.

-- posted by redback

» P_Al - 10 cm margin

Very true redback. I don't think you will find complete uniformity among the statistics from different regions. Even something as simple as colorectal cancer in one set of stats (Canada) vs separate colon and rectal cancer in another (USA). Statistics are useful but there are limitations.

I haven't seen separate data for metastatic cancer. I assume this means that they have used the primary site for collation.

-- posted by P_Al

» redback - 10 cm margin

OK...before leaving statistics, what is the standard 'margin of error' set for cancer studies? (Just joking) Increased detection vs increased true incidence. Lots of things to muddy the waters including these comments.

But you've still probably pointed out a real difference between our countries if we could compare any particular public health strategies to explain obvious shifts. What else could it be? Australia a better but riskier place to live?

I was reading today of a breath test and our input into it.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=22169 re lung cancer but also breast cancer, even ulcers.

We have free health care...darn, it's 10.30pm again!

-- posted by redback

» tinuviel - 10 cm margin

I hardly understand half of what you guys have been saying, but I do find the following extremely hilarious--even if it is about cancer:

"In 2006, researchers found dogs could be trained to smell cancer on the breath of patients with 99 percent accuracy."

That's awesome! (LOL). Talk about a cheap method of diagnosis. Sure beats an MRI. I've heard that polar bears have an even stronger sense of smell than the best bloodhound. Maybe using them would get the percentage of accurate diagnoses up to a hundred. (National Bear Awareness Weeks starts today, incidentally--but I guess that's if you live in the U.S.)

I also found this part of the article provided by redback extremely interesting--and potentially troubling: "lung cancer cells give off chemicals, called volatile organic compounds or VOCs, which are then breathed out."

If VOC's are anything like CFC's the ozone layer could be in double trouble from smokers!

Seriously, though, I guess all these lung cancer developments are good. I find it hard to be truly sympathetic toward lung cancer sufferers who get it from smoking. Others who don't, of course, have my sympathy.

-- posted by tinuviel

» redback - 10 cm margin

Truth can be hilarious and can be found in the weirdest of places...even when you don't want the spouse to find it. Joking!

The breath test probably isolates irrelevants like garlic etc. When we hear of exciting new developments...and I love attending our Garvan Institute's public seminars...one needs to hold their breath that the treatment developed gets out earlier than needed. But some of this stuff is years away.

"I find it hard to be truly sympathetic toward lung cancer sufferers who get it from smoking. Others who don't, of course, have my sympathy."

Many ethical issues. Should they jump the queue for lung transplants? Should the taxpayer pay for it as we do here? If poor lifestyle should rule out sympathy or access to treatment, how many of us should get treated for anything?

I'll always recall a video of a chap who had a tracheotomy..was smoking through that!

-- posted by redback

» tinuviel - 10 cm margin

Yeah, I think I've heard about that tracheotomy guy smoking through the ghastly hole. So, surely you should be agreeing with me that such persons deserve far less sympathy. I don't think there's should be any question about whether they or the state should pay for the problems they've spent years creating.

I suppose when you say "If poor lifestyle should rule out sympathy or access to treatment, how many of us should get treated for anything?" you're talking about fat people and (is it type 2?) diabetics? I love those infomercials on tv where the people cry and say "I'm fat and I can't control my food." Those are the ones who step forward and get help. I hate exercising myself, so I've signed up for a class that keeps me accountable--that literally makes me exercise.

We need to take responsibility. After all, medical science can only reverse these problems to a certain extent and everywhere there's stuff that shows you how to prevent these issues. Nobody's perfect. I'm probably the least perfect of them all. Perhaps that's why I try so hard... I don't know. Didn't mean to moralize. We can sympathize with whomever we choose. I choose to sympathize with real victims. Have you ever considered the fact that some people actually want to die??

-- posted by tinuviel

» tinuviel - 10 cm margin

By the way, read smiles into my former post. I don't want it to sound too defensive and offensive. Compassion is a good thing after all. There's a group of people who believe it good that we not treat people as their "sins" deserve. I guess I'm one of them. It's just easier to be sympathetic toward an arthritic. So, I'll be working on my compassion.

-- posted by tinuviel

» P_Al - 10 cm margin

Alot of current smokers started when they were in their early teens. One of the problems I have is that large companies spend large sums of money enticing those who may not fully appreciate the implications of their actions. Perhaps what many now recognize as irresponsible adults are often times victims who have been caught in a well orchestrated net. Addictions are very real - they make rational intelligent human beings do things that appear reckless and stupid.

-- posted by P_Al

» tinuviel - 10 cm margin

A lot of them start earlier than that. I've heard from reliable sources that nicotine is at least as addictive as cocaine. But there are methods of quitting smoking and it is life and death we're dealing with here. The point is, after a person has smoked for forty years and has had that many years to quit, should I really feel sorry when they suffer from emphysema and lung cancer? Perhaps. Should I pay to get them out of it? I really can't afford it.

-- posted by tinuviel

» redback - 10 cm margin

When it comes to our taxation, we have no choice here but to pay as free medical treatment exists. When it comes to people recklessly injuring themselves or "wasting" all their money enjoying themselves we pay...when they lose their jobs because it was always someone else's fault, we pay. Hey, I don't want to keep searching for an example that sounds too relevant here.

But it also occurred to me we also keep paying to rescue that silly British sailor, Bullimore, every time his yacht hits trouble close to Australia in his global travels.

At the lowest common (economic rationalist) denominator, all these people become things for doctors and surgeons to practice on. I mean, you don't want 'em practicing on you, do you? Really?

I wasn't limiting it to diabetes or smoking. But a very long time ago, I learned not only was there black and white...but that pesky shade of grey in between.

Stay around.

-- posted by redback