Should lung cancer patients quit smoking if undergoing treatment?

"Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing." (granfury) 01/03/2016 at 01:58 • Filed to: None

0

22

A friend of a friend went to the hospital for a nasty cough. They found that he had pneumonia as well as spots on his lungs. And his liver. And his pancreas. And his brain. And a few other places. Something tells me he’s not going to last too long in this condition.

He’s undergoing treatment at the VA despite the how much the cancer has metastasized, yet still continues to smoke like a chimney. From what I’ve read, doctors that are diagnosed with incurable cancers tend to avoid treatment, knowing that it isn’t going to improve the quality of life, just prolong it.

Here’s the quandary - if you’re going to get treated, especially at taxpayer expense, shouldn’t you stop doing the main thing (smoking) that caused this whole problem in the first place? If you don’t want treatment, fine, go ahead and continue to smoke. My estranged grandmother did that, and when things got too tough for her she went out to a field with a gun and took matters into her own hand.

It just seems a little naive to get treated for lung cancer and think that the two packs a day isn’t going to affect the chances, however slim, for recovery. I don’t know - perhaps there’s a hell of a lot of denial going on, but you’d think the hospital would set down some ground rules, even in a life-and-death situation. Weird.

bob and john > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 02:02

1

Honestly, and this seems kinda brutal. We all know that smoking causes this shit. Idk if the insuranc. Or taxpayers pay out AT ALL. he did this to himself.

Svend > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 02:09

4

There are some hospitals in the U.K. that if organ donation is required to keep you alive require you to quit smoking and if your found to of started again it will affect your place on the transplant list and personally I think, rightfully so.

Smoking, heavy drinking and obesity are the plague of any health service.

Berang > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 02:13

0

I’m not a doctor, so I’m not really qualified to give an opinion, but I’d think it’s obvious they should. Real life rarely gives second chances at anything, especially just being alive.

pip bip - choose Corrour > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 02:36

1

yes he should be forced to give up.

Spazburn1966 > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 02:41

0

Vets dead in AZ because of a Greedy Va official? Who did the Tax Payers put in Jail for killing the Vets thru criminal negligence? Bush told 20+ years retirees, “You gotta pay for your Healthcare now”. There is money to pay for his Healthcare and pay his salary for life.

Here’s the quandary - if you’re going to get treated, especially at taxpayer expense, shouldn’t you stop doing the main thing (smoking) that caused this whole problem in the first place?

Y’all civilians are funny.

Tohru > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 03:07

1

when things got too tough for her she went out to a field with a gun and took matters into her own hand

Holy shit, that’s fuckin’ hardcore. My policy’s been if I get cancer I’m not getting treatment (because I don’t have insurance and I’m not going to bankrupt my family for maybe an extra couple years), but I don’t think I could do that.

Nauraushaun > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 03:15

4

It might not help to quit once the cancer has already taken hold. But yes, if you’re willing to let taxpayers pay and doctors work to fix you, the least you can do is do your part: stop fucking smoking

Xyl0c41n3 > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 04:25

3

Spoken like someone who clearly has never struggled with addiction.

Bravo, dude! Now if only addicts of all sorts would just take your advice to just “stop doing” the thing they’re addicted to, then all their problems would be solved! Especially those pesky burdens to society who are mooching off taxpayers, amirite?

Except it’s not that simple and life doesn’t work that way.

Grow up.

Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. > Xyl0c41n3 01/03/2016 at 04:56

1

Trust me, I understand addiction and am fully aware that it’s not a matter of just stopping, but that’s not really the issue I’m concerned about. I’m questioning the rationale of providing treatment without doing anything about the underlying cause of the illness. If he was put into a smoking cessation group along with the treatment I wouldn’t have an issue. But if you’re not going to treat the addiction, the idea of treating only the illness seems like a waste of resources, and that’s something nobody is willing to address. Would you put someone on a liver transplant list if they refuse to get help for a drinking problem? It’s hard to say ‘no’, but sometimes that’s what’s necessary.

The ridiculed and misunderstood so-called “death panels” brought up during the ACA discussions just prove that we are unwilling to talk about difficult problems and even contemplate what happens when our lives are about to come to an end. False hope and promises of miracles may make the problem fade into the background, but it doesn’t address the problem. I’ve already had rather uncomfortable discussions with my mother regarding her end-of-life treatment instructions, and am only somewhat prepared to carry out her wishes should she be unable to make the treatment and resuscitation choices on her own. Even though it’s not an issue at the moment, I still get choked up thinking about such things, but I know it’s not something that can be avoided regardless of how uncomfortable thinking about it may be.

I’m definitely on the bleeding-heart side of the discussion, with a firm belief that medical care should be something universally available to all regardless of income or employment status. I’ve also looked at data from Canada and the UK I realize that there are some blunt matters that need to be addressed, and I question whether we’re willing to discuss such things in the US. My fear is that, if we are unable to hold honest and frank discussions about life and death, the system will never change and we will continue to bury our collective heads in the sand and hope and pray that the problem will just magically go away.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 05:34

0

Yeah continuing to smoke isn’t going to help one bit. Their condition means their immune system will be in poor shape, meaning the smoking will further their chances of respiratory problems.

Twingo Tamer - About to descend into project car hell. > Xyl0c41n3 01/03/2016 at 05:35

3

Everyone is aware stopping is hard, but it isn’t impossible either. That seems like quite an extreme reaction.

deekster_caddy > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 07:38

1

If he doesn’t care about his life, then keep on smoking. Everyone knows better by now. It doesn’t affect all people - everyone has cancer a little bit differently than everyone else, but some people who quit can survive, sometimes for a very long time!

So the question to ask him is whether or not he wants to live.

deekster_caddy > Tohru 01/03/2016 at 07:43

2

My dad got prostate cancer last summer. Got treatments, chemo and some other drugs, knocked it way the hell back and is currently clear of the C. At 78 years old anything can happen, but at this point he’s not giving up. Don’t give up just because you heard a scary word. There are many, many different types of cancers, and everyone handles them and their treatments differently.

My brother’s mother in law chose to not get any treatment and she’s gone. Lived a few months longer than the dr’s said she would, but dead is dead. My dad chose to fight and so far is doing quite well.

crowmolly > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 09:05

0

In a lot of cases it’s extremely hard to stop smoking.

I don’t know the guy so I can’t speak directly about his situation. But there are people out there with stomas that still smoke through the hole so that should say something about the struggle.

Who knows. Maybe his family is making him go through with the treatment. Maybe he knows he’s done and just doesn’t care.

Quadradeuce > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 09:55

1

I worked through college at the university’s cancer hospital. I was always amazed at how many patients smoked through their tracheotomy. Even when they were on oxygen...

E92M3 > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 11:53

0

I’m sure they told him to stop. Lol They can’t MAKE him though. It’s an extremely hard habit to kick. Even when you’re facing death, and knowingly killing yourself. There’s thousands of nurse’s that watch people die everyday from smoking, who continue the habit themselves. He’s probably under a lot of stress considering his diagnosis, which isn’t helping. Is it stupid to continue to smoke? Yes... Can anyone stop him? Only 1 person can stop him. He should consider e-cigarettes at least or some less harmful way to get nicotine.

Textured Soy Protein > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 12:54

1

What I’ve learned over the past several years dealing with assorted elderly relatives and their health problems, is that more often than not, when it comes to their health, people are fucking stubborn, to their own detriment.

I’m very lucky that my dad’s parents have always been very proactive about taking care of themselves. My grandpa died a couple months ago at age 91. Sure, it’s sad, but he was totally prepared for that to happen, and went peacefully. Right up to the end he was in a good situation where he had people looking after him and he did what he was told. My grandma is similarly realistic about getting the care she needs.

But they’re the exception Literally every single other person in my life who is old and needs some kind of medical attention, no matter how many times they get told by how many doctors and relatives that they need to do XYZ, their response is to do the exact opposite .

The funny thing is that generally speaking, my grandpa was just as much if not more of a stubborn-ass motherfucker than all these other people. But I guess because he was a scientist he was always very pragmatic when it came to health and taking care of himself.

VincentMalamute-Kim > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 13:19

1

For your specific person with metastases everywhere; no, he should not quit smoking. He should do whatever the hell he wants because he really does not have long for this world. He has no chance for recovery, not even slim.

For the people saying, if he’s going to get treated, he should stop. That’s true if you have a potentially curable/treatable cancer, he should indeed stop; keep smoking makes the chance of recurrent disease or a new cancer more likely and the treatment more likely to fail. This guy does not have a treatable or curable cancer.

For the people saying, the taxpayers are paying. That’s true but I would bet it’s not his decision. Meaning he’s not making a fully informed decision. In this case, his doctors should have told him exactly how many weeks he has left, that he’s not going to be cured, and that the treatment isn’t going to do anything other than mess up those few weeks he has left. His doctors are dropping the ball on not getting this through to him.

What he should do is get out of the hospital, move to Oregon, do whatever he wants until the cancer catches up to him in weeks/few months, and take some pleasant drugs at the end instead of what your grandmother did. She was a brave, no nonsense woman.

I’m not an oncologist but this because this is something I see on a daily basis at work.

VincentMalamute-Kim > Full of the sound of the Gran Fury, signifying nothing. 01/03/2016 at 13:31

1

To repeat what I just wrote: for this particular person, it makes no difference whether or not he keeps smoking. It makes no difference whether they treat him or not as far as him living more than a few months.

I bet his doctors have actually told him exactly what the truth is. That’s understandably not getting through and won’t for a while.

Your other points in the discussion are valid opinions. BTW, no you’re not getting a liver transplant if you refuse to stop drinking. Unlike what I intimated in my first response, his doctors probably did tell him the facts. It’s usually on the patient and especially the patient’s family that won’t accept/takes a while to accept the bad news.

Medical care should be universally available. In the US, a shit ton (meaning I can’t give you the exact numbers but it’s a lot) of those resources are being used in the last months/year of life doing futile treatment like in the case you’re bringing up.

The US system of healthcare pays you for doing a treatment or procedure. You don’t get paid if don’t provide a futile treatment. It’s in the hospital and doctor’s economic interest to provide the unnecessary care.

DipodomysDeserti > Nauraushaun 01/03/2016 at 18:49

0

Many veterans were exposed to lots of carcinogenic material. The guy is not “letting” taxpayers pay for his medical care. He earned it. Let him do whatever the fuck he wants.

Nauraushaun > DipodomysDeserti 01/03/2016 at 20:31

0

What if he’s not a veteran? If he didn’t earn it?

DipodomysDeserti > Nauraushaun 01/03/2016 at 22:27

0

With that level of metastization, not smoking isn’t going to make a difference, so yeah, he might as well keep smoking. And despite popular belief, we still don’t have free healthcare in the US. Even someone receiving heavily subsidized health insurance will still have to pay out of pocket for a big chunk of any sort of advanced cancer treatment.