~vince~ wrote:
My heart isn't strong enough to survive cancer surgery. It would cause stroke or death for heart reasons. I have multiple medical conditions which complicate each other. Treatment for one condition adversely affects the others.

My options are limited. And I'm not atttempting to appease the consciences of others. I'm glad to help people, but it often takes energy that I don't have. I generally only put the needs of others before mine if their severity exceeds my own in intensity. Otherwise, I tend to myself first.

I'm still making lifestyle changes to increase my survival chances. I do find, however, that it's incredibly hard to help other people in their illnesses nine times out of ten. Either they don't understand the magnitude of their illness, or they are completely reliant on the established medical community, rejecting outside resources, even if the established medical community offers them no hope. Trying to offer hope to a terminal medical patient is like trying to offer hope to a chronic alcoholic. It works maybe one time out of ten.

I've done a great deal of research about cancer and I believe that it practically takes the knowledge of a scientist coupled with the discipline of an olympic athlete to overcome in many cases. Also, I'm age 40, so I have a better fighting chance than someone who is perhaps age 80. I know one person my age who recovered from stage 5 liver cancer, while another person my age has been walking around for the last five years with half of a brain tumor which couldn't be fully extracted. So I think that I have a fighting chance despite the odds.

The only time that I really feel hopelessness is if I'm in a great deal of physical pain, but that seems to come and go. I still take certain medications that keep me practically functional. I have a little bit of energy to get out of the house about three evenings a week, but I rest at home for the rest of the time. I believe that medications today in the United States artificially prolong the average lifespan by about ten years. However, the quality of life drops drastically when a lifespan is artificially extended for so long.

-

Legally, a human body may be regarded as a type of property with some restrictions.

In comparison, my automobile is my property and not someone else's. I have exclusive rights to driving it and no one else is allowed to drive (or even touch) my car without my express permission. It is similar with my body. Just as I'm not allowed to just start driving (or even touching) your car without your express permission, so also it is with your body. Your body is your legal property in your adult years, short of being appointed a legal guardian.

It's theoretically possible for cancerous cells to become encapsulated and even shrink down in size by being cannibalized as a progressive energy source, but it typically takes a major positive lifestyle change requiring the tenacity of an athlete. If I were to offer a very weak illustration: a new vehicle which is abused for it's first 1000 miles will manifest severe mechanical problems at 100,000 miles (but perhaps not until then), but a new vehicle which is well cared for during it's first 1000 miles will last for 200,000 miles without the manifestation of major mechanical problems.

I generally wouldn't suggest to most people that they follow the same course that I personally follow, simply because most people don't possess the same knowledge base of physiology that I do.

For example, I drive a motorbike and I have the knowledge to drive it with relative safety. However, if anyone asks me if they should purchase a motorbike, I tell them 'no' because it's much too dangerous. Only if they had my same knowledge base would I suggest that they take such a risk.

The same goes for my wholistic medical approach. I wouldn't recommend it to everybody in the context of a terminal health risk, simply because most people lack the knowledge and/or discipline that I have. I would instead send them to a modern western doctor. Furthermore, I don't want the responsibility if they fail after following my advice. Nonetheless, I'm content within myself for the choices which I make regarding my own body.

I believe that consciousness exists into the afterlife in some form or another. I don't believe that we are just a physical body. We have an afterlife spirit of some kind. I believe that the body's microscopic cells are smarter than the greatest medical minds on earth. I view death as a transitory state.

-

My brother and I had a disagreement over my mother's treatment when my mother passed away from cancer three years ago. My brother's view was to offer cancer treatments to my mother no matter what degree of physical torture that it would inflict, just to extend her life by an extra three months. Whereas, my view was just to let her live peaceably, even if she lost three months. I believe that my brother wanted to keep my mother alive for an extra three months more for his comfort than for hers.

I respect myself in my decision. I also respect others' perspectives regarding what decisions they would make for themselves, whether they might agree with my decisions or not. I can't really tell somebody else what to do with their own body, so long as it's not illegal. Just so long as they're not harming somebody else's body.

I am additionally hoping that cancer can be halted (and potentially reversed) through wholistic treatment at the younger age of 40 (which would not be necessarily true at age 80). There are many European countries outside of the United States where tumors are left within the body rather than removed. Tumors generally grow and shrink continuously on the microscopic levels. In the context of modern western medicine, the administration of cancer treatments are often in the best interests of doctors for the purpose of medical liability issues versus the actual beneficial outcome of the patient. What's medically best for the patient is not always legally best for the doctor, and the doctor comes first. The patient comes second.

For example, if a patient has a brain tumor in many European countries, they just monitor it and leave it alone. If the tumor is cut into, then it becomes malignant when exposed to air. But it may simply become encapsulated and shrink if left alone. If the European doctor cuts into the tumor, thereby inciting excessive malignancy, the doctor can lose their license. But if the doctor refrains from administering treatment and the patient dies, then the doctor may simply be off the hook.

However, it's the reverse in the United States. If a US doctor detects a benign brain tumor and fails to suggest surgery, the doctor will potentially lose their license, even if the patient lives. But if the doctor cuts into the benign brain tumor (thereby causing it to become malignant and thereby killing the patient), the doctor is then legally off the hook. It's largely a legal thing for the doctor.

-

Unfortunately, medications aren't always functionally effective. I have more faith in my body's natural capacity for recovery (at the age of 40 with proper diet and exercise) than I do in various medications that offer no guarantee and may even damage the body severely. Of course, I might not necessarily say that the same course of action would be ideal for someone at the age of 80. I have more faith in my natural physiology (particularly at age 40) than I do in specific modern western medicine treatments in this specific context.

There can sometimes also be a negative placebo effect if treatments may exceed a patient's physical and/or psychological pain tolerance. Holistic medicine is usually more successfully used as a preventive (as opposed to interventive) method. Much like healthy diet and exercise. They are good lifestyle changes but no guarantee. And age factors in also.

I'm placing quality of life over length of live. Quality versus quantity.

With modern western medicine (namely medications and surgery), treatments which may physically cure (albeit with a very low success rate yet high bodily torture) may also psychologically destroy, thereby inducing a negative placebo effect. Thus the misery of the treatments themselves may functionally kill me.

Whereas, with ancient eastern medicine, having a positive psychological attitude and healthy lifestyle (without medications or surgery) can have a positive psychological effect that also affects the body. Hence, happy living may keep me alive.

-

I'm not excessively concerned over other people suffering over my potential death because I regard their suffering as somewhat minimal. A friend of mine died at the age of 42 for example. I cried once or twice for a week but I moved on. Since I don't have any close relatives, I don't expect a much more profound reaction than that from people.

Actually, I'm still living and enjoying life as best I can. For example, I can now enjoy riding a motor scooter in the rain, whereas before I couldn't. I complain about fewer things than I did before, that most people regard as things to complain about. If it rains on my head, I now enjoy the sensation instead of running indoors.

I value the quality of life over and above the quantity of years lived. I'd rather live a few years happy versus many years sad. The more ego attachment that I had placed on my life over years past, the more miserable they were. However, now I'm going out and enjoying life more than before, and I'm generally happier for it.

I'm still following healthy wholistic methods to take care of myself, much like as was directed towards my mother. I'm eating healthier and exercising at the gym periodically. I just don't want the medications or machines that western medicine offers.

Actually, the last twenty years of my life (from age 20 to 40) were already lived rather tortuously due to non-cancer illness. And the type of cancer isn't highly successfully treatable even at age 40. Some cancers are easily treatable at age 40 and some not so much so.

I've simply weighed the pros and cons and therefore opted for what I believe is the greater good for me. My decision affects me more than it does other people. Some other people will be minorly inconvenienced, but they'll get over it in a week or two I suppose.

Perhaps the primary reason for refusing cancer treatments for me is the low potential chance of success versus the high level of physical torture that treatment will produce.

I watched my mother die of cancer just three years ago, even moving into her home and acting as her caregiver. This allowed me to watch her painful deteriorization over a period of seven months firsthand. The modern western doctors basically sent her home without treatment after her diagnosis, saying that there was nothing that they could do. They just smiled at her and gave her pain pills, sending her home to die. They gave her six months and she died in seven.

Ich Werde wrote:
I am truly sorry and hope full well your wounds heal.

swstephe wrote:
I think it probably came from the instinct to put one group of people in the "risk taker" bucket, then to put people with poorer health in the "to be protected" pile. It has less to do with rights or dignity and more to do with social/sexual roles. The ill are "effeminated", (as a psychological category -- actually women are often much tougher, physically, than men, I mean only "placed in a socially submissive position"). See how "refusing treatment" is submissive, (refusing to submit to treatment)?