A view on cancer?

A mate and I were talking today and the subject of cancer came up. I know this may be a touchy subject. We were both discussing how family members have been affected by it such as my gran who pulled through however we were both under the same mind set that in certain circumstances some people who have cancer shouldn't have as much sympathy as others with cancer. These circumstances that were discussed were heavy smokers or even smokers in general just as an example (there were others). We both believe that the warnings that you get on packets of cigarettes should be alarm bells for smokers to stop and the other warnings you hear from elsewhere as well. These people are who we believe should receive less sympathy as they were warned and know the dangers of smoking such as cancer. I don't mean to offend anyone who have lost friends or relatives who have sadly passed due to these circumstances. I'm not saying they don't deserve sympathy, of course they do.

What are your thoughts?

 

Thoughts on your post ?

Pretty poor tbh and probably best you have made your comments known from behind a keyboard

Wouldnt recommend you let them be known so openly in a packed boozer for example where many ears may be listening

 

l lost my mum in 1986 at the age of 55 and she had never put a * in her mouth and Mrs B had smoked since she was 11 till she was told to give it up nearly 25 years later when she was first diagnosed with cancer in 2006. She had secondary cancer in 2008 but since then (touch wood) she's kept reasonably good health.

l can't see how filling your body full of smoke can be good for you but l don't think its the root of all health problems.

 

Cancer is a hidden horrible debilitating disease that can strike anyone mate and although lung cancer in particular is closely associated to smokers something like 15-20% of lung cancer victimes have never smoked. Therefore it is wrong in my opinion to stigmatise lung cancer suffers as somehow being less deserving of any sympathy.

I strongly believe that many cancers are gene related and if you are unlucky enough to have the cancer gene it can strike anytime, sometimes fatally and sometimes not. That applies to all cancer types, not just lung cancer.

 

I'm not saying that all cancer sufferers from all types of cancers shouldn't get sympathy, that's madness! What I'm saying is people who are warned such as cigarette packets and doctors advice from appointments yet ignore these warnings putting your own life at risk and your family's worries.

 

http://www.thrivemovement.com/suppression-natural-remedies

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWRzikJ3iso&feature=player_embedded"]Alternative Cancer Cures Exist and Have Been Suppressed - Kimberly Carter Gamble - YouTube[/ame]

I believe there's a cure out there.

 

But it is the root of some in certain circumstances which I'm trying to get across. Hope Mrs B keeps well.

 

Should your views not apply to everybody who drinks alcohol as well then ?

As we all know it is not exactly good for you

Well?

 

so if someone smokes they have to receive less sympathy for having cancer? even though there are so many things that are linked to cancer?

wow, your level of naivety is incomprehensible

 

If it is gene related there is nothing more the sufferer can do. And I would hope nobody would ever suffer cancer from gene related issues.

 

yip its in the genes it just neads a trigger for some smoking others enviorment, lifesyle etc

 

I agree mate. I read somewhere that everyone has the cancer gene in their body, obviously there are certain things to set it off but I personally think a lot of it is down to family genes.

As for smokers, my dad smoked all his life, my mum didn't. My dad went through his life without cancer and my mum is due in this year for a full mastectomy after getting breast cancer last year.

 

That's true I'm not denying it but I'm talking about people who have been warned by doctors etc and ignore it.

 

There was a thing on you tube saying it is 1 big conspiracy to make revenue and people rich

 

Hope your Mum pulls through, my Gran got the all clear last year and she never smoked aswell but the doctor said that my granda's smoking may have triggered it.

 

The year before my mum passed away she witnessed a wee girl getting knocked down and as she was the nearest person to her she comforted the girl but tragedly she passed away in my mums arms and it was only after my mum had died there was some health program on the tv saying that shock can trigger off the cancer gene in your body.

 

lot my gran and granda (mum side) to it my granny smoked till her late 30s early 40s granda smoked like a lum its a * horrible disease was with them both when they passed its heartbreaking

 

Breast cancer for women I think must be a terrible ordeal. Of course all cancers are and my Ma had breast cancer diagnosed 6 years ago and had to have a mastectomy yet has been clear now for the past two years.

Of course breast cancer reserach has received massive funding worldwide and in general survival rates are now far better than they were say 20 years ago. Yet something like lung cancer doesn't seem to get anything like that level of funding or even research. Is that fair then on the 15-20% of non smokers who contract lung cancer?

 

Now I have a view that some might not agree upon.

But I was diagnosed with cancer at 20 years old. And after being given no hope in * of pulling through I did. That was 7 years ago.
I used to smoke, but that isn't what caused it. But I quit because I knew exactly where I would end back up and more than likely in a much worse position. So I had 4 months intense chemo, initial surgery (left nut removed), cancer spread to my abdomen, lungs and neck. So after my chemo I had surgery on my abdomen. 3 months later neck surgery. Year after that Lower lobe of my lung removed. Can't be more grateful towards the NHS and my doctors and nurses. So after going through all that, I'm not going to lie I haven't been a saint. But I made changes to my life.

In my time in hospital, I seen many people there through smoking. Older people, most were elderly so it must be much harder for them to quit. But they were down stairs smoking with an oxygen tank. ??? Not only are they on that oxygen from smoking, it's flammable gas.
Anyway, the drugs and treatment is not cheap. You're talking tens of thousands of pounds, and units blood, platelets, GCS-F hormones, pain killers, anti-sickness pills, etc cost a lot of money.

Now I feel if patients show a willingness to give up smoking (and this could be said the same for alcohol and drugs) after treatments, and in the case of others who have never smoked, done drugs, etc, lose out on treatments or nurse/doctor power due to those that just simply won't quit?

Sounds harsh but really think about it. Forever hearing moaning at the NHS....waiting times, shoddy wards, treatments and so on, yet I bet millions of £'s are wasted on those not even willing or trying to change their lives and never intend to.

I would operate on a basis of get treated, and show a will to change your lifestyle. But if you were getting treatment and didn't even bother to quit the */booze/drugs/* diet, then why should you get thousands worth of help when you're not going to appreciate it?

There you have it. Might not agree with it, but it's a view that shouldn't just be dismissed. Have a think about it.

EDIT: Just read sympathy.....All sufferers should get sympathy. It's a horrible disease and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.